Assets And Liabilities Of Public Servant Cannot Be Shielded From Public Scrutiny, Be Completely Exempted U/S 8 Of RTI Act: Madras High Court

Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the service register of the public servant contains details of the assets and liabilities of the employee which were not private information. The court noted that these details could not be shielded from the public scrutiny. However, the court added that though this information had to be disclosed, there had to be some reasonable restrictions.

“No doubt, it is true that the assets and liability of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny but there should be a reasonable restriction of the same. Such of information which could not harm the career of the public servant could also be disclosed like the date of his joining the service, the date of promotion if any and the nature of work discharged by him,” the court said.

The court also added that the materials in the service register had to be scrutinized and if the disclosure is denied, necessary reasons for such denial should be provided.

“Therefore, the materials available in the service register would have to be scrutinised and the reason why those materials are required also have to be verified and examined by the Officials concerned. There cannot be an order denying every information. Even if any information is sought to be denied or to be disclosed, then necessary reasons for such denial should be provided,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by M Tamilselvan challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, North Madras denying to furnish information relating to the personal details of some public servants. The petitioner had initially sought information about the disproportionate wealth of an Assistant Engineer in the Water Reservoir Project Sub-Division, Krishnagiri Taluk. When the information was not furnished, he filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act. The petitioner had also information about the Panchayat Secretary relating to his service register book.

The reason assigned while denying to furnish this information was that the information sought to be furnished was protected under Section 8 of the Act.

The court noted that the impugned order only stated that the information sought was exempted under Section 8 which was not acceptable. The court noted that once the individual accepts to join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare and could not avoid the general public from seeking details so far his service was concerned.

Thus, the court remanded the matter to the District Collector for fresh consideration and directed him to dispose of the appeal within 2 months by following the procedure enunciated by law

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R.Thirumoorthy

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. C. Vigneswaran Senior Counsel, Mr. S. J. Mohamed Sathik Government Advocate, Mr. J.Ramkumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 490

Case Title: M.Tamilselvan v The District Collector and Others

Case No: W.P.No. 33854 of 2024