Supreme Court Upholds Privacy of ACRs under RTI Act | Third-Party Disclosure Procedure Emphasized

The Supreme Court affirmed the Delhi High Court's decision, ruling that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is shown. The Court stressed the mandatory procedure under Section 11 for disclosing third-party information. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the Division Bench's judgment was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the information sought by the appellant falls under the category of "third party information" and if it can be disclosed in the public interest.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Conflicting decisions by different High Courts on the disclosure of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and related documents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Third Party Information and Public Interest:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking copies of note sheets and correspondence related to a public servant's ACR. The CPIO denied the request, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure unless it serves a larger public interest. The appellant argued that the information pertains to the integrity of a public servant and thus is of public interest. However, the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the denial, stating that ACRs are personal and their disclosure requires a public interest justification.

2. Interpretation and Application of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11:
Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information from disclosure unless it serves a public interest. The courts consistently held that ACRs are personal information. Section 11 mandates a procedure for disclosing third-party information, requiring notice to the concerned party and an assessment of whether public interest outweighs privacy concerns. The Division Bench emphasized that the procedure under Section 11(1) is mandatory, and the privacy defense of the concerned officer must be considered.

3. Conflicting Decisions by High Courts:
The appellant cited conflicting judgments from the Kerala High Court and the Delhi High Court. The Kerala High Court in *Centre for Earth Sciences Studies vs. Anson Sebastian* held that documents from a domestic enquiry are not personal information and can be disclosed. In contrast, the Delhi High Court in *Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer* upheld the confidentiality of ACRs, emphasizing the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1) for third-party information. The Supreme Court in *Girish Ramchandra Deshpande* also held that ACRs and related documents are personal information and their disclosure requires a public interest justification.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, affirming that ACRs are personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest is demonstrated. The Court emphasized the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1) for disclosing third-party information. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed.

---