The Kerala Public Service Commission cannot be compelled to open up confidential disciplinary note files and internal deliberations merely because an RTI request has been filed, the Kerala High Court has ruled, drawing a firm line between transparency and institutional confidentiality.
Justice Mohammed Nias CP held that internal records generated during disciplinary proceedings — including file notes, recommendations, opinions and deliberative materials — are protected from routine disclosure under the Right to Information Act unless a demonstrable larger public interest exists.
The ruling came in a petition filed by the PSC challenging an order of the Kerala State Information Commission, which had directed the Commission to furnish records sought by a former employee.
The Court underscored that the phrase “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act carries a far wider meaning than just private personal details. According to the judgment, judicial precedents have consistently recognised that service records, disciplinary proceedings, confidential assessments and employment-related documents also fall within the protected category.
The dispute stemmed from an RTI plea moved by former PSC Joint Secretary Rani Wilfred, who sought copies of enquiry records, file notes and connected materials linked to disciplinary action initiated against her over alleged cash-handling irregularities during her tenure as cashier.
The disciplinary proceedings had earlier resulted in penalties, including recovery of alleged losses and withholding of increments. Years later, Wilfred sought reconsideration of the proceedings and simultaneously demanded access to the internal files through the RTI route.
The PSC refused disclosure, invoking exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, arguing that the records were held in a fiduciary capacity and involved protected personal information.
The State Information Commission, however, directed disclosure, reasoning that the records pertained to proceedings initiated against the applicant herself and therefore could not be denied. It additionally initiated proceedings against the Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the Act.
Before the High Court, the PSC maintained that Wilfred was not seeking merely the final outcome of the proceedings, but confidential internal materials containing candid views, recommendations and institutional deliberations. Releasing such documents, it argued, would compromise the free functioning of the Commission and weaken the confidence with which officers record opinions during decision-making.
Accepting the argument, the Court drew a distinction between final decisions communicated to employees and the internal consultative process that leads to those decisions.
The judgment also invoked the “doctrine of candour,” observing that decision-making within public institutions depends upon officers being able to express views frankly without apprehension that every internal note may later become public.
Rejecting the Information Commission’s reading of the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), the Court clarified that the provision cannot be stretched into an unrestricted right to obtain all service-related or disciplinary material.
The Court further referred to amendments introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, noting that the revised framework reflects a stronger legislative preference for safeguarding personal and service-related information, even though the amendment itself would apply prospectively from November 30, 2025.
Finding no overriding public interest in the present dispute, the Court set aside the Information Commission’s order directing disclosure of the disciplinary records.
Standing Counsel PC Sasidharan and advocate Millu Dandapani appeared for the PSC, while Standing Counsel M Ajay represented the State Information Commission. Advocate Surya Binoy assisted the Court as amicus curiae.
