Personal Asset Statements of Public Servants are Exempt from Disclosure Under Section 8(1)(j) Absent Larger Public Interest

The Petitioner sought information under the RTI Act regarding the assets and liability statements (1997-2005) of one Sri. S.P. Jayapal, a former Deputy Manager at KSRTC

The Petitioner alleged that Jayapal practiced fraud to obtain a sale deed for her property and argued that since the transaction was reflected in his Income Tax Returns and he was a public servant, the information was public in nature

The Public Information Officer (R3) rejected the application under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, asserting it was personal information with no relationship to public activity

This decision was upheld by the Karnataka Information Commission (R1)

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Commission's order

1. Whether the assets and liability statements of a public servant constitute "personal information" exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

2. Whether a private dispute involving allegations of fraud naturally establishes a "larger public interest" sufficient to override the exemption under Section 8(1)(j)

Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which exempts the disclosure of personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless a larger public interest justifies disclosure

The court interpreted the "non-obstante clause" in Section 8(1) as creating a mandatory exemption unless an exception is proven

It further distinguished between "private interest" (benefiting an individual litigant) and "public interest" (bearing a nexus to the welfare of the public at large)

The Court reasoned that the mere status of an individual as a "public servant" does not render their private financial details public; doing so would strip an entire class of citizens of their constitutional right to privacy

It held that asset statements furnished to an employer for administrative or vigilance purposes do not automatically become accessible to third parties

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s motive was the enforcement of private rights in a civil dispute, which does not equate to "larger public interest"

To override the privacy exemption, the applicant must demonstrate that disclosure is necessary to expose corruption, systemic irregularities, or misuse of public funds

In this case, the Petitioner failed to show any nexus between the requested information and the welfare of the public at large

The Court held that the right to privacy, a constitutionally protected right, outweighs the private interest of a litigant seeking to bolster a civil claim

Consequently, the Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the orders of the lower authorities. The Writ Petition was dismissed