The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) is not required to disclose internal note files, deliberative materials, and disciplinary records of an employee under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This decision came in the case of The State Public Information Officer and Under Secretary Kerala Public Service Commission & ors v The Kerala State Information Commission & ors, presided over by Justice Mohammed Nias CP.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a petition filed by the KPSC challenging an order from the Kerala State Information Commission (Kerala SIC). The SIC had directed the disclosure of documents requested by Rani Wilfred, a former joint secretary of the KPSC, under the RTI Act. Wilfred sought access to file notes, enquiry materials, and records related to disciplinary proceedings against her during her tenure as a cashier. These proceedings had previously resulted in penalties, including the barring of increments and recovery of alleged financial losses.
Court’s Interpretation of the RTI Act
Justice Mohammed Nias CP emphasized the importance of balancing transparency with privacy and institutional confidentiality. The court noted that the RTI Act’s exemption for ‘personal information’ under Section 8(1)(j) should not be narrowly construed. “The provision includes not only personal records but also professional records, service records, disciplinary proceedings, confidential assessments, and employment-related materials,” the court stated.
Contentions and Court’s Observations
The KPSC argued that the documents requested by Wilfred were not limited to the final order but included confidential materials containing opinions and recommendations from officers. They contended that releasing such information could affect the institutional functioning and relationships within the commission. The court agreed, observing that internal note files are distinct from the final decisions communicated to employees.
Rejection of Kerala SIC’s Order
The Kerala SIC had relied on the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), suggesting that information accessible to parliament or legislature should also be accessible to the public. However, the court rejected this interpretation, asserting that the proviso does not create an unrestricted right to access personal or service-related information.
More Read
Implications of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
The court also took into account the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Although the amendment is set to take effect from November 30, 2025, it signals a legislative shift towards stronger protection of personal and service-related data.
Ultimately, the court determined that no larger public interest was demonstrated in Wilfred’s case and quashed the Kerala SIC’s order for disclosure. The ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding confidential information unless significant public interest dictates otherwise.
Representatives in the case included Standing Counsel PC Sasidharan and advocate Millu Dandapani for KPSC, Standing Counsel M Ajay for Kerala SIC, and advocate Surya Binoy as amicus curiae.
