HomeRTI Case-Law Library › Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Inform...
Section 8 personal information

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner

Quick answer

A public servant’s service record — memos, show-cause notices, censure or penalty orders, assets and income-tax returns — is “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) and is normally exempt. The Court decided this on the clause as it stood before 13 November 2025; the clause now reads only “information which relates to personal information”, and a public-interest case now rests on Section 8(2) or, for records relating to or supplied by a third party, the proviso to Section 11(1).

Court / forum
Supreme Court of India
Citation
(2013) 1 SCC 212
Decided
3 Oct 2012
Bench
Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan & Justice Dipak Misra
RTI sections
8(1)(j)

Issue before the court

Whether a third party can obtain a public servant’s service-career details, assets and liabilities under the RTI Act, or whether this is “personal information” exempt under Section 8(1)(j).

Facts in brief

The applicant sought a government employee’s service record — memos, show-cause notices, orders of censure or punishment — and his movable and immovable assets, income-tax returns and gifts received. The CIC declined disclosure and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Holding / decision

The Supreme Court held that such service-record details and personal financial information are “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j). The performance and conduct of an employee is essentially a matter between employee and employer, governed by service rules, with no relationship to any public activity or interest. It can be disclosed only if a larger public interest is shown — which the applicant had not.

The RTI principle it set

A public servant’s service and personal-financial records are presumptively exempt personal information; on the clause as it then stood, the applicant had to demonstrate a larger public interest to unlock disclosure. Since 13 November 2025 that argument sits in Section 8(2) or, for records relating to or supplied by a third party, the proviso to Section 11(1), not in clause (j).

What it means for you

You generally cannot obtain another individual’s service record, assets or income-tax returns through RTI unless the public authority is satisfied, under Section 8(2) or the proviso to Section 11(1) for third-party records, that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm.

Draft your RTI freeFree · no login · plain-English guidance

What RTI can help you get

  • Your own service record and personal information
  • Information where the public authority is satisfied, under Section 8(2) or the proviso to Section 11(1) for third-party records, that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm
  • Aggregate or policy information that does not identify a specific individual’s private affairs

What RTI may not give you

  • Another employee’s memos, show-cause notices or penalty orders without public interest
  • A third party’s assets, liabilities or income-tax returns
  • Purely personal information with no link to any public activity

When to cite this case

When seeking — or resisting — disclosure of another person’s service file, disciplinary record, assets or income-tax returns; or to frame a public-interest justification under Section 8(2) or, for records relating to or supplied by a third party, the proviso to Section 11(1), which is where that argument now sits.

Later developments / current status

Statutory update: clause (j) was substituted with effect from 13 November 2025 by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (section 44) and now reads only “information which relates to personal information”, so this judgment construed wording that is no longer in the Act; the public-interest tests that remain are Section 8(2) and, for third-party records, the proviso to Section 11(1). Girish Deshpande is the leading authority on Section 8(1)(j) and is widely followed. It has also drawn criticism for over-broad denials; later benches stress that the public-interest test must be genuinely applied rather than used as a blanket shield.

Limits / caution: The bar is not absolute: Section 8(2), and the proviso to Section 11(1) for records relating to or supplied by a third party, let a public authority allow access where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm, and the same information may be available to the individual it concerns. Clause (j) no longer carries a public-interest proviso of its own. This judgment has since been read broadly, sometimes to deny information; each request turns on its facts.

Source & verification

Full-text reference: Read the full judgment (free third-party legal database — not an official record)
Source checked on: 20 September 2026
Reviewed by
Adv. Syed Musab Rahim Hashmi
RTI Advocate · FileMyRTI Legal Team
Review status: Verified
Last reviewed: 20 September 2026
Source verified against: Central Information Commission — Landmark Supreme Court RTI Judgments (official compilation)

Related FileMyRTI services

Use RTI Dost to frame a public-interest justification, and the Deadline Clock to track your appeal.

This is educational information, not legal advice. This summary is for general understanding of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The authoritative text is the official judgment as recorded by the court. Any third-party links are provided only for convenient reading. For your specific matter, consult a qualified legal professional.
Success Your changes has been saved
Error