Table of Contents
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande: Personal Information Under RTI
Direct answer: Girish Deshpande held that a public servant's disciplinary, service, asset and income-tax details were personal information and were not automatically disclosable. In 2026, use the judgment with the current text of Section 8(1)(j), which now exempts information relating to personal information, and separately argue Section 8(2) where disclosure serves a concrete public interest. Ask for non-personal records, rules, statistics and severable portions instead of demanding an employee's entire file.
Last reviewed: 13 August 2026.
What the Supreme Court actually decided
The Supreme Court decided Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v Central Information Commissioner on 3 October 2012. The applicant had sought memos, show-cause notices, punishment and censure orders, assets, liabilities, investments, loans, gifts and income-tax-return details concerning a public servant. The Court agreed that the requested material was personal information in the circumstances of that case. It also recorded that the applicant had not established a bona fide larger public interest for disclosure.
That is narrower than the slogan sometimes attached to the case. The judgment did not declare that every record concerning a public employee is secret. It dealt with the particular categories requested and the public-interest case presented to the authorities.
The 2026 legal position
The wording of Section 8(1)(j) used by the Court has since changed. Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 substituted clause (j) with the words “information which relates to personal information”. The current statutory text should therefore be quoted in any request or appeal filed now, not the older wording reproduced in the 2012 order.
Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains important. It permits access where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. This is not a magic phrase. An applicant should identify the suspected public wrong, explain how the requested record can prove or disprove it, and limit the request to what is necessary.
A better way to draft the request
Separate personal material from institutional accountability. Instead of asking for a named employee's complete service book, consider asking for:
- the rule, circular or standard used to decide the matter;
- date-wise movement of your own complaint or application;
- the final order after masking home address, family, medical and financial identifiers;
- aggregate numbers of complaints, inquiries, findings and penalties;
- the names and designations of officers exercising official powers, where relevant;
- the non-exempt portion after severance under Section 10.
If named-person information is indispensable, add a short public-interest paragraph tied to evidence. For example, identify an audit finding, court record or official complaint that makes the requested disclosure necessary. Avoid broad allegations.
If the CPIO cites Girish Deshpande
Read the rejection closely. It should identify the exemption applied to each category; a bare case name is not a substitute for reasons. In the first appeal:
- acknowledge the current Section 8(1)(j) test;
- distinguish institutional records from intimate personal details;
- request severance under Section 10;
- state the specific Section 8(2) public interest, if one exists;
- narrow the time period and fields if the original request was excessive.
Do not claim that public servants have no privacy. That argument conflicts with the judgment and weakens the appeal.
Filing checklist
- Download the Supreme Court order and mark the categories actually decided.
- Check the current RTI Act text on India Code before quoting Section 8.
- List the exact record, date range and public authority holding it.
- Remove requests for opinions, explanations or speculative answers.
- Ask for severable, redacted copies where only part may be exempt.
- Keep proof supporting any Section 8(2) public-interest claim.
Frequently asked questions
Does the case make every public servant's record confidential?
No. It concerned specified service, disciplinary, asset, gift and tax-return material and an applicant who did not establish larger public interest. Apply the current statute to the exact record requested.
Can a CPIO disclose part of a mixed record?
Yes. Section 10 provides for severance of the exempt part where the remaining material can reasonably be supplied.
Is saying "larger public interest" enough?
No. Explain the public harm, the evidence already available, why the record is necessary, and why a narrower or redacted disclosure will not suffice.