Madras High Court order on RTI applications for public servants' asset disclosures, 2024. Exact docket, parties, and the full text of the order should be consulted on the Madras High Court website and on Indian Kanoon for precise citation.

The order sits within a broader 2024 re-affirmation across High Courts that transparency concerning public servants' conduct-related filings is constitutionally sustainable under the Puttaswamy proportionality framework.

All-India Service officers and most Central and State Civil Service officers are required to file an Annual Property Return under their respective conduct rules. The returns list:

• Immovable property (land, buildings) held directly or by family members.
• Significant movable property (investments, vehicles).
• Loans and liabilities above the prescribed threshold.

The question that has come before several Information Commissions and High Courts is: are these returns disclosable under the RTI Act? The earlier Supreme Court line of cases — principally Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013) — held that such returns are generally exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest is shown.

The Madras High Court's 2024 order reaffirmed the public-interest override in Section 8(2) for such disclosures, and clarified the contours:

• The applicant must plead a specific public interest — not merely curiosity.
• Where the public interest is pleaded (for example, suspicion of disproportionate assets), the PIO must test that interest against the privacy harm.
• Section 10 severance applies to family members' private data — identifying information about the officer's non-public-servant family members should be redacted; the officer's own holdings disclosed.

• For PIOs in State and Central public authorities — requests for Annual Property Returns need case-by-case assessment. A generic “8(1)(j)” refusal is no longer defensible where public interest is pleaded.
• For journalists and activists — a well-drafted application that cites a specific public-interest ground (for instance, disproportionate-assets suspicion, policy-conflict-of-interest, integrity of a specific office) has a stronger footing.
• For public servants — the conduct-rules filing is effectively a semi-public record. Privacy extends to the officer's family members' individual data, not the officer's own holdings.

• The RTI Act, 2005 — current text. Sections 8(1)(j), 8(2), 10.
• Privacy of public servants.
• Public interest.
• Annual Confidential Report.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013) — the foundational SC ruling on ACRs and property returns.
• K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) — privacy framework.
• Case law library.

The Madras direction applied Section 8(1)(j) in its pre-amendment form. Post-14 November 2025, the same reasoning is carried through Section 8(2). The public-interest override remains the operative route. The initial wave of Commission orders under the amended clause will test whether the Madras framework holds. See DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment.

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 8(1)(j), 8(2), 10.
2. The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
3. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

20 April 2026