The Rajasthan High Court has held that details regarding a husband’s salary and related emoluments constitute personal information and are not subject to disclosure under the Right to Information Act, emphasising that such information is exempt from disclosure when it pertains to an individual’s privacy and does not have a direct bearing on public interest. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Santosh Kumar Sharma and Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, was hearing a petition filed by a husband and wife challenging an order of the State Information Commission which had directed the disclosure of the husband’s salary particulars in response to an RTI application filed by a third party seeking such information.
The factual matrix of the case involved an RTI application in which the applicant sought details about the salary and emoluments received by the husband, who was employed in a government position. The Public Information Officer and the State Information Commission had taken the view that salary particulars were part of public records and hence should be furnished under the RTI request. The husband and wife approached the High Court challenging the order of the State Information Commission, contending that disclosure of salary details would violate the husband’s right to privacy and personal information, and that such data did not involve any matter of larger public interest.
In its analysis, the High Court referred to settled principles under the Right to Information Act regarding exemptions and limitations on disclosure, particularly focusing on Section 8(1)(j) of the Act which exempts personal information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy unless the disclosure serves a larger public interest. The court observed that salary and emoluments of an individual, while being part of official records, would nonetheless be personal in nature when the request for disclosure is directed towards a specific person’s compensation and not linked to any allegation of corruption, wrongdoing or misuse of public office.
The Bench emphasised that the RTI Act confers a right to information subject to statutory exemptions and that the right to privacy is a fundamental right recognised under the Constitution. It held that an individual’s salary particulars are personal information which cannot be disclosed merely on the basis of an RTI request unless there is a compelling public interest that outweighs the right to privacy. The court noted that in the absence of any allegation of impropriety or public interest imperative justifying the disclosure of the husband’s salary details, the High Court saw no reason to uphold the State Information Commission’s direction for disclosure.
In considering the contentions, the High Court distinguished between public information that may relate to general policy or organizational matters of a governmental department, which can be disclosed under the RTI framework, and specific personal data relating to an identifiable individual’s remuneration, which engages privacy concerns. The Bench observed that salary structures and scales applicable to a category of public servants constitute public information, but particulars of an individual’s earnings beyond what is generally applicable require protection when sought in an RTI plea.
The High Court accordingly allowed the petition, set aside the order of the State Information Commission, and held that the husband’s salary details and related emoluments are personal information not subject to disclosure under the Right to Information Act in the circumstances of the case. The ruling reinforces the principle that the RTI Act’s transparency objectives must be balanced with protection of personal privacy, and that information concerning an individual’s private financial details cannot be disclosed without justification involving a clear public interest that overrides privacy concerns. The judgment underscores that information officers and adjudicatory bodies must carefully examine requests that seek personal data to ensure that statutory exemptions and the right to privacy are respected in accordance with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.