In a significant ruling balancing transparency with privacy, the Chhattisgarh High Court has stepped in to protect a government lecturer from what he alleges is harassment through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The court granted him interim relief by staying the release of his confidential service records.
Court Halts Disclosure, Seeks State's Response
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu issued the order, putting an immediate stop to the dissemination of the lecturer's personal documents. The court has also sent formal notices to the state school education department and other involved parties, seeking their stand on the matter. This action came after the petitioner convincingly argued that the sensitive information was being sought not for public interest, but to target and harass him personally.
The Core of the Controversy
The petitioner is a Sanskrit lecturer employed at the Swami Atmanand Excellent Hindi Medium Government Higher Secondary School located in the Korba district. The dispute began when three individuals, identified as journalists and another person, filed separate RTI applications. They sought access to a comprehensive set of the lecturer's personal documents, including:
- His complete service book
- All educational certificates
- His caste certificate
- The original appointment order
- Domicile documents
Despite the lecturer's firm refusal to consent to the disclosure, the Block Education Officer (BEO) of Katghora, acting in the capacity of the Public Information Officer, directed the school principal to provide these documents.
Legal Argument: Privacy Overrides Public Interest
Representing the lecturer, advocates Mateen Siddiqui and Apurva Pandey presented a crucial legal precedent before the court. They cited the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Girish R Deshpande vs CIC. The counsel argued that the personal details of a government employee, such as those sought, unequivocally fall under the protected category of 'personal information'.
They emphasized that this information has no direct nexus with any public activity or interest. Therefore, its disclosure is expressly barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which safeguards personal information from unwarranted invasion of privacy unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
The High Court has now called for official responses from key authorities, including the Secretary of the School Education Department, the Director of Public Instruction (DPI), the Chief Information Commissioner, and the concerned education officers in Korba. The interim stay will remain in effect until the court hears the matter further, providing crucial breathing space to the petitioner.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between the public's right to information and an individual's fundamental right to privacy, especially for government servants. The court's final decision could set an important precedent for how similar RTI requests for personal employee data are handled across the state.
