DVAC cannot blanket-deny RTI requests for corruption-enquiry records, Madras High Court rules

The second respondent, a retired DGP who had been the subject of a DVAC detailed enquiry, applied under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for the enquiry reports, government queries, recorded statements and related documents

The Public Information Officer (PIO) rejected the request under Section 8(1)(g), and the first appeal was also rejected.

On second appeal, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission directed disclosure, with the names and particulars of other officers masked.

The State challenged that order, relying on Section 8(1)(g), the Section 11 procedure, Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual, privilege asserted in pending civil proceedings, and the difficulty of masking voluminous records.

1. Whether DVAC’s exemption under Section 24(4) barred disclosure of records concerning an enquiry into allegations of corruption

2. Whether disclosure of the enquiry records was exempt under Sections 8(1)(g) or 8(1)(j), including whether witness or source information could be withheld

3. Whether Section 11, Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual, claimed privilege in the civil proceedings, or the burden of masking voluminous records justified withholding the records

Section 24(4) of the RTI Act does not exempt information relating to allegations of corruption from disclosure; such requests must be assessed under the Act’s applicable exemptions.

Section 8(1)(g) protects information where disclosure would endanger a person’s life or physical safety, or reveal a confidential source or assistance given for law-enforcement purposes; a general apprehension is insufficient.

The Court referred to Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212, and Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam, (2018) 11 SCC 426, for the principle that service and disciplinary information may constitute personal information, while distinguishing a request by the person who was himself the subject of the enquiry.

Section 8(1)(j) may protect genuinely private information about unrelated third parties, but Section 10 requires severance and disclosure of reasonably separable, non-exempt material.

Section 11 prescribes a third-party consultation procedure where its conditions are met; it is not an independent exemption.

The enquiry concerned allegations of corruption, so Section 24(4) did not provide a complete bar to the request.

The State produced no specific material showing that disclosure would endanger anyone’s safety, or that disclosure of each third party’s identity would reveal a confidential law-enforcement source; Section 8(1)(g) therefore could not justify blanket withholding.

Because the applicant was the subject of the enquiry, the Court held that the cited service-record cases did not justify withholding the entire file, while recognising that genuinely private third-party information could be redacted under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 10.

The DVAC Manual, the asserted privilege in the civil proceedings, and the administrative burden of masking could not displace the RTI Act’s disclosure and severability framework; Section 11 was to be followed for any information meeting its conditions, without withholding the remaining disclosable material.

The writ petition was dismissed without costs; the enquiry records were to be furnished in accordance with the Commission’s order, with the names and particulars of the other officers masked, and the Section 11 procedure followed where applicable.