Premium

Holding public office doesn’t mean losing right to privacy: Karnataka High Court

If every piece of information about public servants were amenable to disclosure, an entire class of people would lose protection afforded under the RTI Act merely because they hold public office, the Karnataka High Court ruled.

Karnataka HC senior citizens act daughter-in-law eviction

The Karnataka High Court directed the daughter-in-law to vacate the house within eight weeks.

3 min readBengaluruJun 11, 2026 05:09 PM IST First published on: Jun 11, 2026 at 04:34 PM IST

The Karnataka High Court has held that personal information relating to personal assets, liabilities, financial affairs, income particulars, tax records, family matters, and medical records, that a public servant furnishes to the employer cannot be disclosed to a third party under the Right to Information Act.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj said in an order on June 1, “Mere fact that such information is required to be furnished by a public servant to his employer or to a statutory authority under the applicable service rules does not, by itself, render the information publicly disclosable under the RTI Act.”

The order added, “Asset and liability statements are ordinarily collected by the employer or the competent authority to ensure compliance with service rules, promote probity in public service, identify possible conflicts of interest, and facilitate vigilance or disciplinary oversight, wherever required. The purpose for which such information is collected cannot automatically determine the scope of its disclosure to third parties.”

S Savithramma had approached the court challenging the Karnataka Information Commission’s order that upheld Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation’s rejection of her request for details of the assets and liabilities of S P Jayapal, a deputy controller at the KSRTC’s central office. She argued that he had fraudulently obtained a sale deed from her and that she required the information because of pending civil suits.

Advocate G B Nandish Gowda, appearing for Savithramma, argued that since Jaypal was a public servant, any immovable property he acquires, together with the corresponding disclosures required to be made under service rules and statutory provisions, partook the character of public information.

The court rejected this contention. “The mere fact that a person is a public servant does not ipso facto render every piece of information concerning him amenable to disclosure under the RTI Act,” its order read.

The order added, “If such an interpretation were to be accepted, the protection expressly afforded under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act would stand substantially diluted in respect of an entire class of individuals merely because they happen to hold public office.”

The court referred to 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts from disclosure information related to personal information, the disclosure of which is unrelated to any public activity or public interest, or that would result in an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.

The court stated that while an individual’s right to privacy is protected under clause (j), but it may be overridden in an appropriate case where the larger public interest demonstrably outweighs the privacy interests. The burden would necessarily lie on the applicant seeking disclosure to establish the existence of such an overriding public interest, it added.

The court noted that the information sought was to aid in a challenge to a property transaction allegedly entered into between Savithramma and Jayapal

The court dismissed the petition, saying the RTI Act’s provisions cannot be employed for obtaining personal information protected under law “merely for the purpose of advancing a private claim”.