The Kerala High Court held that internal note files, disciplinary records and deliberative materials of the Kerala PSC are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is established.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that internal note files, disciplinary records, and deliberative materials linked to disciplinary proceedings cannot be disclosed automatically under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Court said such records can only be disclosed if a larger public interest is clearly established.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. delivered the judgment while hearing a petition filed by the State Public Information Officer and Appellate Authority of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). The petition challenged an order issued by the Kerala State Information Commission (SIC).
RTI Application Filed By Former KPSC Employee
The dispute began after a former KPSC employee filed an RTI application seeking copies of file notes, inquiry materials, and records connected to disciplinary proceedings initiated against her.
The proceedings related to alleged irregularities in cash handling during her tenure as a cashier. The disciplinary action resulted in penalties, including withholding of increments and recovery of the alleged financial loss.
Several years later, the employee sought reconsideration of the disciplinary proceedings. She then filed an RTI application requesting access to the internal records and deliberative materials connected to the case.
KPSC Denied Disclosure
The KPSC refused to disclose the records by relying on Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission argued that the documents contained confidential and personal information linked to disciplinary proceedings and third-party employees. It also contended that disclosure would affect fiduciary relationships and invade privacy.
SIC Ordered Disclosure
The Kerala State Information Commission later directed the KPSC to reconsider the RTI application and disclose the records. The SIC also initiated proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act against the Public Information Officer concerned.
According to the SIC, the records related to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant herself. Therefore, the information could not be withheld under the RTI Act.
High Court Sets Aside SIC Order
The High Court set aside the SIC order and held that the Commission failed to explain how the decisions of the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority were illegal or irregular.
The Court noted that the SIC issued a blanket direction to re-examine the entire RTI application and provide information free of cost. However, it did not identify any specific information that had been wrongly withheld.
The Bench observed that this approach violated the scheme of Section 19 of the RTI Act. The Court also held that the order showed non-application of mind and suffered from procedural defects.
Reliance On Supreme Court Judgments
The High Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, and Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam.
Referring to these rulings, the Court reiterated that service records, disciplinary proceedings, inquiry reports, statements, and details of officers involved in such proceedings qualify as “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Court said disclosure of such information has no connection with public activity or public interest unless a larger public interest is shown.
Protection Of Internal Deliberations
The Court also clarified that internal note files are different from final decisions communicated to employees after disciplinary proceedings conclude.
It held that internal deliberative processes and confidential note files deserve protection unless an overriding public interest justifies disclosure.
The writ petition filed by the KPSC was therefore allowed, and the SIC order was quashed.
