The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a citizen cannot seek a public servant’s asset and liability declarations under the Right to Information (RTI) Act merely to support a private property dispute. The Court emphasized that personal financial information remains protected unless disclosure is backed by a larger public interest.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a writ petition filed by S. Savithramma, who had challenged an order of the Karnataka Information Commission refusing access to the records.
Background of the Case
The petitioner sought copies of the asset and liability statements of a former KSRTC Deputy Controller, S.P. Jayapal, for the period between 1997 and 2005. According to her, the information was necessary because she alleged that a sale deed relating to her property had been obtained fraudulently by the officer.
Her RTI application was rejected by the Public Information Officer of KSRTC, who held that the requested documents constituted personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Karnataka Information Commission later upheld that decision, leading to the writ petition before the High Court.
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information from disclosure when it has no connection with public activity or public interest and would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Justice Govindaraj observed that merely because a person is a public servant does not mean every piece of information relating to that individual becomes public information.
“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,” the Court noted.
The Court further explained that a distinction must be maintained between information relating to official duties and information concerning a public servant’s private financial affairs. Asset declarations submitted to an employer for service-rule compliance do not automatically become available to the public under the RTI Act.
Addressing the petitioner’s argument that the information was required to prove alleged fraud, the Court held that allegations against an individual cannot, by themselves, convert personal information into public information.
The bench observed that the petitioner was seeking the records to advance her claim in a private property dispute. Such a purpose, even if genuine, does not amount to “larger public interest” under the RTI Act.
“The statute contemplates something more, namely an interest which transcends the concerns of the individual applicant and bears a nexus to the welfare of the public at large,” the Court said.
The judgment added that larger public interest may exist in cases involving corruption, misuse of public office, diversion of public funds, or disproportionate assets affecting governance. No such material had been placed before the Court in the present case.
Holding that the requested asset and liability statements constituted protected personal information and that no overriding public interest had been established, the Karnataka High Court found no fault with the decisions of the Public Information Officer and the Karnataka Information Commission.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Case Details:
Case Title: S. Savithramma v. Karnataka Information Commission & Others
Case Number: WP No. 21831 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Judge: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Decision Date: 1 June 2026
 Sanjay Prasad, IAS-300x169.webp)