Right to Information and Employee Privacy: Supreme Court Upholds Confidentiality of Personal Records

The case of Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam & Anr. revolved around the issue of whether an individual employee’s transfer and posting details should be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether such information fell under the category of “personal information” and whether the disclosure was in the larger public interest.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Canara Bank, is a nationalized bank with multiple branches across India. The respondent, C.S. Shyam, was an employee of Canara Bank, working in its Malappuram district branch in Kerala.

On August 1, 2006, the respondent submitted an RTI application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Canara Bank under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005. He sought information regarding the transfers and postings of all clerical staff across different branches of the bank from January 1, 2002, to July 31, 2006. His request covered 15 parameters, including:

• Joining dates of employees
• Designations
• Details of promotions earned
• Dates of joining at various branches
• Authorities who issued transfer orders

The PIO of Canara Bank denied the request, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure unless there is an overriding public interest.

The respondent challenged this denial by filing an appeal before the Chief Public Information Officer, who upheld the PIO’s decision. Dissatisfied, the respondent escalated the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC), which ruled in his favor, directing the bank to provide the requested information.

Canara Bank challenged the CIC’s order in the Kerala High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the bank’s petition, and a subsequent appeal to the Division Bench also failed. The bank then approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments (Canara Bank)

Canara Bank contended that:

• The information sought was “personal” in nature and protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
• Employee transfer and posting details had no bearing on public interest.
• The respondent failed to show how the disclosure of such details would serve a larger public purpose.
• The High Court erred in dismissing the bank’s plea and upholding the CIC’s order.

Respondent’s Arguments (C.S. Shyam)

The respondent countered that:

• The information requested was related to official duties and did not constitute private or confidential data.
• The RTI Act’s objective was to ensure transparency in governance, which included public sector banks.
• The bank’s refusal to disclose the information was arbitrary and violated the spirit of the RTI Act.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined whether the requested information qualified as “personal information” under the RTI Act and whether its disclosure was justified in the public interest. The Court relied on its earlier judgments, particularly in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India.

In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the Court had ruled:

“The details called for by the petitioner, i.e., copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices, and orders of censure/punishment, are qualified to be personal information as defined in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”

Similarly, in R.K. Jain, the Court observed:

“Performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally falls under the expression ‘personal information’.”

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held:

“The information sought by the respondent regarding the transfer and posting details of employees is personal in nature and exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”

The Court further emphasized:

“Neither respondent No. 1 disclosed any public interest, much less larger public interest, involved in seeking such information, nor did the CIC or the High Court record any finding regarding public interest.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Canara Bank, setting aside the Kerala High Court’s judgment and the CIC’s order. The Court held that:

• Transfer and posting details of individual employees were protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
• Public interest had not been established to justify disclosure.
• The bank was justified in denying the RTI request.
• The respondent’s RTI application dated August 1, 2006, stood rejected.

The Supreme Court concluded:

“The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court and Central Information Commission is set aside, and the orders passed by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer are restored.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for RTI applications involving personal data:

• It reinforces the principle that employee records, including transfer and posting details, are personal information.
• It clarifies that disclosure under the RTI Act requires an overriding public interest.
• The judgment prevents misuse of RTI requests to obtain confidential information unrelated to governance or public welfare.
• It sets a precedent for protecting employee privacy while balancing the right to information.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case establishes a crucial principle regarding the RTI Act: while transparency is essential in governance, it must be balanced against the right to privacy. By holding that individual employee transfer details are personal information, the Court has drawn a clear boundary for future RTI requests concerning employee records.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 31-08-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category