Delhi High Court Says Bank Officials’ Vigilance and Promotion Records Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI
The Delhi High Court has ruled that sensitive personal information about bank employees, including vigilance records and internal promotion details, cannot normally be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, delivered the judgment on August 14, 2026. The Court dismissed a plea filed against Punjab and Sind Bank and upheld the protection given to the bank employee’s personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The case started with an RTI application filed by Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury on January 12, 2024. The applicant sought information relating to the promotion of a bank official, Pankaj Dwivedi, to Scale VI in April 2018 and Scale VII in April 2020.
The applicant had asked for copies of Vigilance Clearance Certificates, internal file notes, office notes, CVC guidelines and Board resolutions related to the Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) for those years. He also sought old contact details of the bank’s Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO).
The bank’s Public Information Officer provided the CVO contact details but refused to provide the vigilance clearance and internal promotion records. The bank relied on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information relating to third parties.
The applicant argued that there was a larger public interest involved. He claimed that the bank official had faced complaints under the POSH Act and allegations under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code around the time of his promotions. According to him, it was therefore important to know how the bank’s vigilance department had cleared the official for promotion.
Punjab and Sind Bank opposed the disclosure. The bank argued that an employee’s performance reports, vigilance status and internal promotion discussions are confidential personal information. Making such information public, it said, would amount to an unnecessary invasion of the employee’s privacy.
The High Court agreed with the bank’s position. Referring to earlier Supreme Court judgments, including Aditya Bandopadhyay, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande and Subhash Chand Aggarwal, the Court held that information relating to an employee’s disciplinary record, vigilance status and performance evaluation falls within the employee’s protected personal information.
The Court also observed that seeking internal file notes and details about the constitution of promotion committees would effectively amount to interfering with the bank’s internal administrative process. According to the Court, disclosure of an individual’s vigilance status does not automatically serve a genuine public interest and could cause unnecessary harm to the employee.
The Court therefore dismissed the appeal and maintained the protection available to the bank employee’s personal and service-related information under the RTI Act.
Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
