In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has clarified that the service registers of public servants, particularly details concerning their assets and liabilities, are not exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan emphasized that such information cannot be shielded from public scrutiny, reinforcing the principles of transparency and accountability in public administration.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, M. Tamilselvan, sought information regarding the alleged disproportionate wealth of an Assistant Engineer involved in the Water Reservoir Project Sub-Division in Krishnagiri Taluk. Additionally, he requested access to the service register of a Panchayat Secretary. The Revenue Divisional Officer, North Madras, denied these requests, citing Section 8 of the RTI Act, which exempts certain personal information from disclosure. Dissatisfied with this response, Tamilselvan appealed under Section 19(1) of the Act, leading to the present legal proceedings.
Court's Analysis and Observations
Justice Karthikeyan scrutinized the applicability of Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, which pertains to the exemption of personal information from disclosure. The court acknowledged that while certain personal details might justifiably remain confidential, information related to a public servant's assets and liabilities does not fall under this exemption. Such details are integral to ensuring transparency and preventing corruption within public services.
The court further noted that service registers contain a variety of information, some of which may be personal and unrelated to public interest. Therefore, a blanket denial of access to the entire service register is unwarranted. Instead, each request should be meticulously examined, and only information that could potentially harm the individual's privacy without serving public interest should be withheld. The court stated, "There cannot be an order denying every information. Even if any information is sought to be denied or to be disclosed, then necessary reasons for such denial should be provided."
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the RTI Act's objective of promoting transparency. By distinguishing between personal information that warrants protection and details that should be accessible to the public, the court has provided a nuanced interpretation of the law. Public servants are reminded that their financial dealings, as recorded in service registers, are subject to public scrutiny, thereby deterring corrupt practices.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court's decision reinforces the RTI Act's role as a tool for transparency in governance. By mandating the disclosure of public servants' assets and liabilities, the court has taken a definitive step towards greater accountability in public administration. This judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that the balance between individual privacy and public interest is judiciously maintained.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.