Delhi High Court says Employee Personal Information including Service Records and Financial Benefits can’t be disclosed under RTI

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Sanjeev Narula, ruled that the personal information of employees, including service records, promotion documents, and financial benefits, cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Background Facts

On April 19, 2017, a respondent submitted an RTI application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Directorate of Education (DoE), Delhi, requesting details about the service records of staff at Ryan International School, as well as information regarding their employment conditions. The application specifically inquired about the maintenance and updating of service books, the financial benefits provided to employees according to government guidelines, copies of promotion orders, and communications related to promotions and conduct matters issued by the school.

On May 27, 2017, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the DoE informed the respondent that the RTI application was forwarded to Ryan International School for a response. However, the school did not provide any specific information. Dissatisfied, the respondent filed an appeal under the RTI Act.

On July 25, 2017, the First Appellate Authority instructed the PIO to revise the reply and provide the requested information. The school, however, denied the request, arguing that as a private unaided institution, it did not fall under the purview of the RTI Act and was not considered a “public authority.”

Unsatisfied with the school’s response, the respondent filed a second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC ordered the DoE to use its regulatory powers to obtain the requested information from the school. The CIC emphasized that while Ryan International School may not be a public authority under the RTI Act, the DoE had a responsibility to oversee the functioning of all schools, including private unaided ones, to ensure compliance with the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR), 1973.

The CIC argued that the information sought was related to the regulatory oversight of the DoE and should be accessible under the DSEAR. The commission asserted that the DoE had the power to ensure schools complied with the DSEAR and was obligated to collect necessary information from the school for public access under the RTI Act.

Aggrieved by the CIC’s order, Ryan International School filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking to quash the CIC’s ruling.

Arguments

The school contended that the information requested pertained to personal details about its employees and was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This section protects personal information that does not serve a public interest and may invade privacy. The school further claimed that, as a private unaided institution, it did not fall under the definition of “public authority” under the RTI Act, and therefore was not obligated to disclose employee service records.

In contrast, the CIC argued that most of the information sought should be accessible under the DSEAR, which applies to “unaided schools.” The CIC maintained that these schools are accountable to the DoE and must comply with its regulations. The DSEAR includes provisions that establish criteria for granting, suspending, or withdrawing school recognition.

Court’s Findings

The court observed that the CIC had directed the disclosure of information that was entirely personal to the employees, which is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Additionally, the court noted that no evidence was presented to demonstrate that a larger public interest necessitated the disclosure of such personal information.

The court highlighted that while the CIC directed the DoE to obtain information from schools, it failed to consider the sensitive nature of the personal information being requested. Consequently, the court ruled that the CIC’s order dated May 14, 2019, was unsustainable and set it aside.

Thus, the writ petition was allowed, affirming the protection of personal information under the RTI Act.