Bench holds pay details of a serving government employee fall under exempt “personal information” under RTI Act, absent any overriding public interest.
Jaipur, India: The Rajasthan High Court on 3 February 2026 upheld the denial of a Right to Information (RTI) application by a wife seeking her husband’s salary details. A single-judge bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, affirming that employment and salary particulars of an individual constitute personal information and are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.
Case Background and Legal Issue
The petitioner, Smt. Kanta Kumawat, filed an RTI application on 9 April 2024 with the Bhilwara police department requesting copies of payslips and details of salary paid to her husband, Omprakash, for the period January–March 2024. The authority, represented by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Public Information Officer), refused the request on 26 June 2024, citing it as third-party personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The denial was upheld by the Rajasthan State Information Commission on 23 October 2024.
Aggrieved, Kumawat approached the High Court seeking to quash the Commission’s order and compel disclosure of the requested salary records. The primary legal question was whether salary and pay slip details of a government employee are accessible under the RTI Act when sought by a spouse, and whether such information pertains to public interest.
Bench’s Ruling
The Court upheld the denials, stating that the salary records of an individual fall within the category of “personal information” relating to a third party, which is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless there is an overriding public interest in releasing such information. The bench affirmed that there was no evidence demonstrating that the information sought bore any relevance to public activity or served any larger public interest.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Mathur relied heavily on the apex court’s precedent in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212. In that judgment, the Supreme Court held that information relating to the performance, service matters or salary particulars of an employee are “primarily a matter between the employee and the employer” and fall within the ambit of personal information under RTI unless disclosed in furtherance of public interest.
The High Court noted that salary details of a serving government official do not connect directly with public accountability or transparency in governance, particularly where no allegations of corruption or misuse of public funds were advanced by the petitioner. In the absence of any demonstrated public interest, the Court concluded that the State authorities acted within their rights in withholding the information.
The bench also emphasised that service matters, including pay and allowances, are governed by applicable service rules and administrative regulations, and thereby are not intended to be freely disseminated under RTI.
Practical Implications
- The judgment reinforces the established position that salary and service records of public servants constitute “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and are ordinarily exempt from disclosure unless a clear public interest is demonstrated.
- Even a spouse’s request for salary particulars of a government employee will not automatically override third-party privacy protection under the RTI Act.
- The ruling aligns with wider jurisprudence underscoring the balance between transparency in governance and protection of individual privacy, especially regarding private financial information not tied to any alleged maladministration or public harm.
- Public authorities can continue to rely on the personal information exemption when refusing to disclose service-related pay records, provided there is no compelling evidence of public interest for disclosure.
The judgment adds clarity on the scope of personal information exemptions under the RTI Act, particularly confirming that salary and employment details of a government employee, even when sought by a spouse, do not qualify for disclosure absent a demonstrable public interest in doing so.
