Girish Deshpande v. CIC — Personal Records of Third Parties

The Supreme Court held in (2013) 1 SCC 212, affirming the CIC, that service records, ACRs, and personal details of a third-party public official are exempt under §8(1)(j) unless the applicant demonstrates a larger public interest in disclosure.

This is the leading ruling on what “personal information” means under the RTI Act — and it sets the limits on RTI for a colleague's service file.

Girish Deshpande filed an RTI application seeking copies of service records, details of assets, memos, show-cause notices, and annual confidential reports (ACRs) of a named government officer who was a third party. The information related to the officer's personal employment history, not to any public programme or expenditure.

The CIC declined to direct disclosure. Deshpande challenged the CIC order up to the Supreme Court.

The CIC upheld the CPIO's refusal. The CIC held that service records and ACRs of an individual officer relate to the officer's personal life — not to public money or a governmental scheme — and therefore are “personal information” under §8(1)(j). The applicant had not shown any larger public interest in disclosure.

The Supreme Court in (2013) 1 SCC 212 affirmed: “The details of appointment, salary, service record, assets and other matters relating to an employee, if not connected with any public activity or interest, would come within the exemption under Section 8(1)(j).”

“The details called for by the applicant, i.e., the details of his service matters, his assets, memos issued to him, etc., are personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which exempts the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

— Supreme Court, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, (2013) 1 SCC 212

• §8(1)(j) applies to a third party's personal service records, salary details, ACRs, medical records, and family information — but not to government decisions, expenditure, or scheme beneficiaries.
• If you are seeking your own service records, §8(1)(j) does not apply at all — you have a direct right of access to your own file.
• To overcome §8(1)(j) for a third party's records, you must argue “larger public interest” — for example, where the officer's conduct directly involves misuse of public funds.
• This case does NOT protect a PIO who uses §8(1)(j) to hide information about a public programme, tender, contract, or scheme — that is not “personal information.”
• Combine with the Supreme Court's ruling in Union Public Service Commission v. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 17 SCC 252 for cases involving selection-related records.

• §8(1)(j) — Personal information exemption
• §8(1) proviso — Larger public interest override
• §11 — Third-party notice procedure

Yes, absolutely. §8(1)(j) exempts third-party personal information — it has no application to your own records. File the RTI with your department's CPIO and quote: “I seek information pertaining to myself; §8(1)(j) has no application per Girish Deshpande (2013) 1 SCC 212.”

That changes the analysis. If the record you seek documents how a public official discharged a public duty — spent a budget, awarded a contract, processed a file — it is no longer purely “personal information.” The §8(1) larger-public-interest proviso applies. Cite Subhash Agarwal (2019)] alongside Deshpande. ==== Does §8(1)(j) protect salary details? ==== Salary from public funds is generally disclosable as it involves public expenditure — the High Courts and CIC have consistently held this. What is protected is personal financial information (private bank accounts, personal assets) not tied to the public role. ==== Can I get ACRs under RTI? ==== Only your own ACRs — the Supreme Court in SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 and several service-law judgments confirm that an officer can access their own ACR. A third party cannot access another's ACR unless larger public interest is shown. **Verified source:** Supreme Court of India, (2013) 1 SCC 212 · [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14813091/|indiankanoon.org