Internal disciplinary note files constitute personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

In brief

The question

1. Whether internal file notings and deliberative materials in disciplinary proceedings constitute "personal information" exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The court held

The Court held that internal file notings in disciplinary cases are exempt under Section 8(1)(j) as personal information, and the proviso does not override this exemption in the absence of a larger public interest.

It also directed

It further held that penal proceedings under Section 20(1) were unwarranted as the KPSC's denial was based on a plausible legal interpretation.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the SIC's order (Ext.P5).

01Facts

The 2nd respondent, a former Joint Secretary of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for cash irregularities. Following a punishment of barred increments and recovery of loss, which she remitted, her subsequent review petitions were rejected.

¶ 2.1

In 2017, she filed an RTI application seeking the complete "Note File" (internal deliberations and opinions of officers/members) related to her disciplinary case.

¶ 2.1

The KPSC denied the information under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the State Information Commission (SIC) ordered disclosure through Ext.P5, holding that such records are not confidential, do not invade privacy when sought by the subject individual, and are subject to the proviso of Section 8(1)(j) regarding the Legislature.

¶ 2.2-2.3

The KPSC challenged this order via writ petition.

02Issues

i.1. Whether internal file notings and deliberative materials in disciplinary proceedings constitute "personal information" exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

¶ 8 / 13

ii.2. Whether the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) creates an absolute right to information if such information could theoretically be sought by Parliament or a State Legislature.

¶ 17 / 27

iii.3. Whether the initiation of penal proceedings under Section 20(1) against the Public Information Officer was justified.

¶ 30

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which exempts personal information lacking public interest or causing unwarranted invasion of privacy.

¶ 9

It relied on Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC [(2013) 1 SCC 212] and Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam [2017 (4) KHC 784], establishing that service records and disciplinary matters are "personal information".

¶ 12, 22

It also applied the principle from CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [2011 KHC 4686] regarding the balance between transparency and administrative efficiency.

¶ 13

Finally, it considered the "Doctrine of Candour" as recognized in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal [2019 (5) KHC 499] concerning internal governmental deliberations.

¶ 15

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 2 Section 7 Section 8 Section 11 Section 20

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Section 44

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that internal Note Files are qualitatively different from final orders; they contain evaluative comments and opinions protected by the "Doctrine of Candour" to ensure frankness in governance.

p. 28

Applying C.S. Shyam, the Court held that disciplinary proceedings are matters primarily between employee and employer, constituting "personal information" with no nexus to public activity.

p. 34

Regarding the Section 8(1)(j) proviso, the Court rejected the SIC’s "mechanical" interpretation. It clarified that the proviso does not nullify the substantive exemption; rather, it must be read alongside Parliamentary rules which actually restrict members from seeking information on private personnel grievances or "day-to-day administration".

pp. 38-39

Since the 2nd respondent failed to demonstrate any "larger public interest" outweighing privacy, the exemption stood.

p. 34

The Court further noted that the recent amendment via the DPDP Act, 2023, while prospective, confirms a legislative shift toward stronger privacy protections.

pp. 40-41