Salary Slips as “Personal Information” Under RTI: Third-Party Pay Details Not Disclosable Without Overriding Public Interest

1. Introduction

The petitioner, Smt. Kanta Kumawat, invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge orders refusing information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). She requested copies of pay slips/salary details paid to an employee of the respondent police department, namely Omprakash, for the period January to March 2024.

The principal issue before the High Court was whether salary slips/pay details of a third-party employee constitute personal information exempt from disclosure under the RTI framework, absent any demonstrated overriding public interest.

The respondents (State/Information Commission and police authorities) denied disclosure on the ground that the information was personal in nature, related to a third party, and was therefore exempt.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no illegality or infirmity in refusing to supply salary information of a third party. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212, the Court treated employee-related information as falling within “personal information”, and held that disclosure is not warranted in the absence of any overriding public interest.

Consequently, the Court upheld the impugned orders (dated 26.06.2024 and 23.10.2024) and dismissed the stay application as well.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment centrally relies on:

• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212
  The Rajasthan High Court adopts the Supreme Court’s characterization that information relating to the performance/records of an employee in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, governed by service rules, and ordinarily constitutes personal information. The Supreme Court’s principle—non-disclosure absent overriding public interest—is used as the controlling yardstick to assess the RTI request for pay slips/salary details.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in a short but clear sequence:

1. Nature of information: The request concerned salary/pay slip details of a specific employee (a third party), not information about the functioning of the authority in the abstract.
2. Third-party privacy: Such information was treated as personal in nature belonging to the employee and therefore not ordinarily open to public inspection through RTI.
3. Public interest threshold: Following Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the Court emphasized that disclosure requires a showing of overriding public interest. On the material before it, no such overriding public interest was established.
4. Judicial restraint under Article 226: Once the refusal was found consistent with the privacy-protective approach mandated by the Supreme Court precedent, the Court found no basis to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

3.3 Impact

This decision reinforces a clear operational rule for RTI authorities and litigants in Rajasthan:

• Salary slips/pay details of an identifiable employee are likely to be treated as personal information when sought by someone other than the employee, and are therefore generally not disclosable.
• Applicants must articulate a concrete overriding public interest (for example, a credible allegation of misuse of public funds, fake appointment, double salary, or demonstrable corruption) rather than a private dispute or curiosity.
• RTI litigation challenging denial of third-party pay details will face a high bar due to the strong precedential pull of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, making writ relief less likely unless the case is framed around public-interest accountability and supported by prima facie material.

Practically, the judgment may lead to more frequent routing of such disputes to other lawful mechanisms (service-law remedies, family-court disclosure processes, civil discovery, or departmental grievance channels) rather than RTI.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Personal information” (in RTI context): Information that primarily pertains to an individual’s private/service particulars (including service records and similar employee-related data), disclosure of which may intrude on privacy.
• “Third party”: A person other than the RTI applicant and the public authority—here, the employee whose salary slips were requested.
• “Overriding public interest”: A higher public-purpose justification that outweighs privacy concerns—typically linked to transparency in public administration, prevention/exposure of corruption, or safeguarding public funds—requiring more than personal reasons.
• Article 226 (writ jurisdiction): The High Court’s constitutional power to review administrative decisions. Courts generally avoid substituting their view when the decision aligns with settled Supreme Court law and no patent illegality is shown.

5. Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in SMT. KANTA KUMAWAT v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN consolidates the position that third-party salary slips/pay details are “personal information” under the RTI regime and are not ordinarily disclosable unless the applicant demonstrates an overriding public interest. By expressly anchoring its conclusion in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., the Court underscores a privacy-protective approach that will shape how RTI authorities and courts handle similar requests for employee-specific financial/service particulars.