The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that information related to an employee’s ACRs cannot be denied under the RTI Act only on privacy grounds. It said fairness and transparency require that such records should normally be disclosed to the concerned person.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that information connected to an employee’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) cannot be refused under the Right to Information (RTI) Act merely by claiming privacy concerns.
The Court ruled that, as a matter of fairness and transparency in public administration, such records should ordinarily be disclosed to the concerned individual.
While deciding a writ petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Justice Deepak Khot upheld an order of the State Information Commission directing disclosure of the ACR-related information requested by an applicant about his own ACRs.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Defers RTI Petitions Targeting Political Party Transparency
The State challenged the Commission’s order dated December 1, 2009, arguing that the sought information was protected by the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which bars disclosure of personal information unless public interest outweighs privacy.
The State contended that both the Public Information Officer and the appellate authority were correct in rejecting the application, and that the Commission did not record the required objective satisfaction that public interest overweighs privacy, as stated by the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi.
The High Court rejected these arguments. It found that the applicant was seeking access to his own ACRs, and that the Supreme Court’s position on disclosure of such records was already settled in Dev Dutt v. Union of India. Relying on Dev Dutt, the Court stressed that transparency in service matters is an essential component of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that fairness in administration requires timely communication of confidential report entries to enable the employee to seek improvement.
Quoting from Dev Dutt, the Court observed that,
“Fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries… in the annual confidential report of a public servant… must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation.”
The High Court further explained that this requirement applies even if service rules either do not expressly provide for such disclosure or even prohibit it.
ALSO READ: Judicial Officers’ Complaints Are Private: Chhattisgarh High Court Bars RTI Disclosure
According to the Court, the constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness prevails over such limitations.
Denying an employee access to his ACR, the Court reasoned, would defeat the objective of ensuring accountability and fairness in administrative decision-making.
On the State’s reliance upon Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, the Court clarified that the balancing of public interest and privacy is relevant where disclosure would involve confidential or third-party material. In contrast, when an employee seeks access to his own performance assessment, the disclosure cannot be treated as an unwarranted intrusion into privacy.
The Court also noted that the Supreme Court has recognized that some categories of information such as those relating to appointments or third-party information shared in confidence may justify protection.
However, ACRs are different, because they directly affect an employee’s career advancement and must therefore be accessible. The Court observed that if employers do not communicate ACR entries, employees are left with no alternative but to approach the RTI mechanism.
In such a situation, dismissing the request on procedural or technical grounds such as the absence of recorded “public interest” satisfaction would be unjustified.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Defers RTI Petitions Targeting Political Party Transparency
The Court held,
“The applicant has sought information in regard to his ACRs, which cannot be said to be invasion of privacy… The ACRs are required to be communicated to the employees,”
Ultimately, the High Court reiterated that the right to privacy and the right to information both rooted in constitutional principles must be harmonized.
But where the requested information pertains to the individual himself and is aimed at ensuring transparency and fairness, the balance favours disclosure.
Finding no illegality in the Commission’s order, the Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chief Information Commissioner and Others
