Case Title: A S MALLIKARJUNASWAMY, AND STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23695 OF 2022
Date of Order: 22-08-2023
CORAM : HON’BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
INTRODUCTION
The decision made by the State Information Commissioner to dismiss the application of a college professor who was inquiring about his colleague’s service record details has been overturned by the Karnataka High Court.
FACTS
In this case, a college professor named A S Mallikarjunaswamy filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court after his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) was rejected by the State Information Commissioner. The Commissioner had rejected his RTI application based on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) states that there is no obligation to provide information that relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would invade an individual’s privacy, unless there is a larger public interest that justifies the disclosure.
Mallikarjunaswamy’s RTI application sought service record details of his colleague. He argued that he needed this information to address his grievances related to his own service, such as matters of confirmation, seniority, promotion, etc. He contended that the information he was seeking was essential for him to structure his claims in service law matters
COURT’S ANALYSIS
Justice Krishna S Dixit of the Karnataka High Court allowed Mallikarjunaswamy’s petition and set aside the decision of the State Information Commissioner. The court emphasized that the petitioner was not a stranger to the institution in question; he was a lecturer who had been working there for years. The court noted that in matters of service grievances, especially those related to confirmation, seniority, and promotion, employees need access to full service particulars of their colleagues working under the same employer.
The court ruled that the rejection of Mallikarjunaswamy’s RTI application under Section 8(1)(j) was not applicable in this case. It stated that denying him the information he had requested would effectively deny him the opportunity to avail benefits under a specific Government Order that prescribed parameters for granting relaxation of service conditions related to reservation.
As a result, the court directed the Principal of Marimallapas PU College in Mysuru to provide the service particulars of the individuals mentioned in Mallikarjunaswamy’s RTI application, along with copies of relevant records, within a period of three weeks. The court also imposed a penalty for non-compliance, stating that for each day of delay beyond the given period, the respondent would have to pay Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner. Additionally, the Principal was ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 towards expenses.
In essence, the court’s decision emphasized the importance of providing relevant service details to employees within the same institution for the proper resolution of service-related grievances, and it underlined that the denial of such information must be carefully weighed against the larger public interest and the individual’s rights.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreya Sharma
