Assets and Liabilities of Public Servants Cannot Be Shielded from Public Scrutiny or Fully Exempted Under Section 8 of RTI Act: Madras High Court
Pranav B Prem
In a recent judgment delivered on December 20, 2024, the Madras High Court emphasized that the assets and liabilities of public servants cannot be completely shielded from public scrutiny or exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The case, presided over by Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, involved a Writ Petition seeking the disclosure of information regarding the assets and liabilities of a public servant.
Background
The petitioners sought details regarding the assets and liabilities of an Assistant Engineer in a public works department, along with other employment-related information. Despite multiple applications and appeals under the RTI Act, their request was denied by authorities on the grounds that such information constitutes "personal information" protected under Section 8(j) of the Act.
Court’s Observations
“No doubt, it is true that the assets and liability of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny but there should be a reasonable restriction of the same. Such of information which could not harm the career of the public servant could also be disclosed like the date of his joining the service, the date of promotion if any and the nature of work discharged by him,” the court said.
The Court examined the amended Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which now exempts personal information from disclosure. However, it reiterated that this exemption is not absolute and should be subject to public interest considerations. The Court clarified that:
1. Public servants must remain accountable, especially concerning their assets and liabilities.
2. While some details, such as punishments imposed or sensitive private matters, could remain confidential, basic information about assets, liabilities, and career progression must be accessible.
Key Points from the Judgment
1. Justice Karthikeyan emphasized that transparency in public administration necessitates the disclosure of assets and liabilities of public servants, as such details are vital for ensuring accountability.
2. The Court noted that while some elements of personal data may warrant privacy, the broader interests of public transparency must prevail in matters related to public resources or responsibilities.
3. The authorities must scrutinize the nature of the information sought and justify any denial with detailed reasoning rather than blanket rejections citing Section 8 of the RTI Act.
The Court set aside the earlier denial of information, directing the State Information Commission to reconsider the matter. It highlighted that public servants, by virtue of their positions, should accept a degree of scrutiny as part of their roles. The Court also instructed authorities to resolve the pending appeal within two months, adhering to legal procedures.
Cause Title: M.Tamilselvan v The District Collector and Others
Case No: W.P.No. 33854 of 2024
Date: December-20-2024
Bench: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan
[Read/Download order]
