Disclosure of an employee's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) under RTI does not constitute an invasion of privacy.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the disclosure of an employee's own ACR constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The court held

The Court held that ACRs must be communicated to employees and cannot be withheld under the guise of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

It also directed

The Court upheld the State Information Commission's order and dismissed the writ petition. The impugned order dated 01.12.2009 was affirmed, and no order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The Petitioner (State of Madhya Pradesh) challenged an order dated 01.12.2009 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner in Second Appeal No. 400/S.1.C./15/Bhopal/2006.

¶ 1

The State Information Commission had directed the State to supply information regarding the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the applicant/respondent.

¶ 2, 3

The Public Information Officer and the first appellate authority had previously rejected the application, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on the grounds that it was "personal information" and its disclosure lacked recorded "objective satisfaction" regarding larger public interest.

¶ 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the disclosure of an employee's own ACR constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

¶ 2, 5

ii.2. Whether the State Information Commission is required to record objective satisfaction regarding public interest when the information sought is the applicant’s own ACR.

¶ 2, 5

03Law Applied

Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, which exempts personal information unless disclosure serves a larger public interest.

¶ 2

Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725, which established that fairness and transparency under Article 14 require the communication of ACR entries to public servants to allow for representation.

¶ 3

Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61, which mandates that authorities must balance the right to privacy against the right to information based on objective satisfaction.

¶ 2, 4

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 8

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that while Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi requires an objective satisfaction to outweigh privacy concerns in certain confidential matters like appointments, those principles do not bar an individual from accessing their own ACR.

¶ 5

Following the ratio in Dev Dutt, the Court observed that ACRs are required to be communicated to employees to ensure non-arbitrariness in state action.

¶ 3, 5

The Court found that an applicant seeking their own ACR cannot be said to be invading their own privacy, nor is such a request contrary to public interest.

¶ 5

Consequently, the lack of a specific "objective satisfaction" recording by the Commission regarding "public interest" did not invalidate the order, as the right to access one's own ACR is now an established legal entitlement.

¶ 5

05Holding

The Court held that ACRs must be communicated to employees and cannot be withheld under the guise of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

¶ 5

The Court upheld the State Information Commission's order and dismissed the writ petition. The impugned order dated 01.12.2009 was affirmed, and no order as to costs was made.

¶ 6

LawLens.Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF