The Kerala High Court recently held that internal note files, deliberative materials and disciplinary records of an employee are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [The State Public Information Officer and Under Secretary Kerala Public Service Commission & ors v The Kerala State Information Commission & ors].

Justice Mohammed Nias CP passed the ruling on a petition filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), challenging an order of the Kerala State Information Commission (Kerala SIC), which had directed disclosure of the documents sought by a former KPSC employee under the RTI Act.

The Court emphasised on the need to balance transparency with privacy and institutional confidentiality and observed that the exemption of 'personal information' under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act cannot be interpreted narrowly or mechanically.

The Court held that internal deliberative processes and confidential note files are entitled to protection unless a larger public interest is clearly established.

"The first component of the provision is personal information and the law relating to it has evolved through judicial pronouncements and is now well settled that the expression “personal information” occurring in Section 8(1)(j), as it stood at the relevant time, takes within its fold not merely personal records, but also professional records, including service records, disciplinary proceedings, confidential assessments and employment related materials" the Court stated.

The case arose from an RTI application filed by Rani Wilfred, former joint secretary of the KPSC, seeking copies of file notes, enquiry materials and connected records relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against her over alleged irregularities in handling cash during her tenure as cashier.

The disciplinary proceedings against Wilfred had resulted in punishment including barring of increments and recovery of the alleged financial loss.

Several years later, Wilfred sought reconsideration of the disciplinary proceedings and later filed an RTI application seeking access to the connected files and internal deliberations.

The KPSC denied her request citing Sections 8(1)(e) (information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship) and 8(1)(j) (personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest) of the RTI Act,

However, the Kerala SIC directed disclosure of all documents sought by Wilfred and also initiated proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act, against the Public Information Officer concerned.

The SIC's order stated that the information sought was related to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant herself and therefore, could not be withheld under the RTI Act.

It also relied on the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which stated that information which cannot be denied to parliament or the legislature cannot be denied to any person.

When the matter came before the Court, the KPSC argued that the material requested by the former employee was not merely the final order but confidential files containing opinions, recommendations and comments of officers and members of the Commission.

Disclosure of such internal materials, it contended, would affect the institutional functioning and the relationship between the commission and its officers.

The Court accepted this contention and observed that internal note files are different from the final decisions that are communicated to employees after the conclusion of proceedings .

The Court said that it is a settled law that service records, disciplinary proceedings, confidential assessments and employment related materials fall within the expression 'personal information', which according to several Supreme Court decisions are exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest was involved.

Emphasising on the 'doctrine of candour', the Court stated that certain documents are protected from being disclosed so as to ensure free and frank expression of opinions from government officials during decision making process.

It also rejected the Kerala SIC's interpretation of the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and clarified that the proviso cannot be interpreted in such a narrow manner that it creates an unrestricted right to access personal or service related information.

Further, it took note of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Act with effect from November 30, 2025 and expanded the exemption relating to personal information.

The Court clarified that even though the amendment was to operate prospectively, it reflected a legislative shift towards stronger protection of personal and service related data.

Thus, observing that no larger public interest had been established in the present case, the Court quashed the Kerala SIC's order directing disclosure of disciplinary records relating to the former employee.

Standing Counsel PC Sasidharan and advocate Millu Dandapani appeared for KPSC.

Standing Counsel M Ajay appeared for Kerala SIC.

Advocate Surya Binoy assisted the Court as amicus curiae.  

[Read Judgment]