Punjab Info Commission Upholds Transparency, Rejects Fiduciary Exemptions in RTI Case
In a landmark ruling that reinforces transparency in public appointments, the Punjab State Information Commission has declared that fiduciary exemptions under the Right to Information Act cannot be casually invoked to shield routine administrative decisions from public scrutiny. This decision underscores the commission's commitment to upholding the spirit of the RTI Act, ensuring that public authorities remain accountable to citizens.
Case Background: Appellant Seeks Clarity on Appointment Delay
The order was issued by Chief Information Commissioner Inderpal Singh while adjudicating an appeal filed by a resident of Chandigarh. The appellant had sought detailed information regarding his selection under the PCS Register A-2. According to the appellant, a selection from the A-2 register was finalized on December 20, 2024. While other selected candidates commenced their service in January 2025, his appointment orders were allegedly withheld without explanation.
To address this discrepancy, the appellant requested copies of the recommendation received from the Punjab Public Service Commission, the legal advice obtained in his case, inspection of the relevant administrative file, and details of the action taken on his representations submitted between January 30, 2025, and February 3, 2025.
Initial Denial and Commission's Scrutiny
The Public Information Officer initially denied parts of the requested information, invoking Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. These sections pertain to information held in a fiduciary capacity and personal data, respectively. The officer argued that details such as names, roll numbers, dates of birth, and marks obtained were confidential and that no larger public interest justified their disclosure.
However, the commission rigorously examined this stance. It delved into the definitions of "information" and "right to information" under Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act, reiterating that exemptions under Section 8 must be interpreted strictly and not misapplied. The commission noted that the Punjab Public Service Commission had publicly recruited section officers for Group A positions in the Punjab Department of Finance, with the competitive examination results, including registration numbers, names, father's names, dates of birth, categories, and marks, published on its official website.
Furthermore, the commission observed that seniority lists issued by the General Administration Department of Punjab routinely include similar details, such as employee names, father's names, dates of birth, joining dates, and retirement dates. Therefore, the commission concluded that denying information merely because it comprised names, roll numbers, dates of birth, and marks was untenable, as such data is already part of official public records.
Commission's Directives on Information Disclosure
Based on this analysis, the commission held that the respondent's request to withhold information under Points 1 and 4 of the RTI application was unsustainable. It directed the respondent to supply the requested information and make the relevant records available for inspection within 30 days of receiving the order.
Clarification on Fiduciary Relationships
Regarding Point 2, which pertained to the legal advice taken in the appellant's case, the commission provided a detailed explanation of fiduciary relationships. It noted that such relationships exist where information is entrusted with an expectation of confidentiality, such as between a doctor and patient, attorney and client, or trustee and beneficiary. The commission emphasized that information obtained in these contexts may be disclosed if a competent authority determines that larger public interest outweighs the need for confidentiality. Employer-employee relationships involving confidential company information or personal data are also treated as confidential under this framework.
The commission reiterated that fiduciary exemptions are not intended to be misapplied to protect routine administrative actions from public scrutiny. It referenced the judgment of the Delhi High Court in State Bank of India v. Mohd. Shahjahan, which held that an employee of a public authority is entitled to know all details concerning themselves, including reasons for denial of promotion, unless specifically exempt under Section 8(1)(e) or (j). The high court clarified that fiduciary exemptions are designed to protect information from disclosure to third parties, not from the concerned individual themselves.
In light of these observations, the commission ruled that the respondent's request to withhold information under Point 2 was unjustified. It directed the Public Information Officer to supply the information up to the date of the RTI application within 30 days from receipt of the order.
Implications for Transparency and Governance
This ruling by the Punjab State Information Commission marks a significant step toward enhancing transparency in public administration. By strictly interpreting fiduciary exemptions and emphasizing that routine administrative decisions must be open to scrutiny, the commission reinforces the foundational principles of the RTI Act. This decision is expected to set a precedent, encouraging public authorities to adopt more accountable practices and deterring the misuse of exemptions to withhold information from citizens.
The case highlights the ongoing need for vigilance in ensuring that the right to information is not undermined by broad or casual invocations of confidentiality. As public appointments and administrative processes continue to evolve, such rulings play a crucial role in maintaining trust and integrity in governance systems across Punjab and beyond.
