Public servant assets under RTI — citizen guide 2026

Many people assume that because someone draws a government salary, every detail about their money is open to public inspection through the Right to Information Act. That assumption is wrong. Whether you can get a public servant's financial information depends entirely on whether the information relates to their public duties or to their private affairs. The line between the two decides almost every case under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

In a ruling dated 11 June 2026, the Karnataka High Court drew that line again in S. Savithramma v. Karnataka Information Commission, 2026:KHC:25434, and held that a government employee's asset and liability statement, filed routinely under service rules, is personal information and is not disclosable to a private litigant merely because allegations have been made against the employee.

The simplest way to understand this area is to compare the two sides directly. The same employee can be the subject of both a disclosable record and a protected one, depending on what exactly you ask for.

The pattern is clear. Money and decisions that flow from the public office are open. Money and records that belong to the person, even if filed with a government office, are protected unless you can show a larger public interest.

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The exemption is not absolute. The same clause says the information must still be disclosed if the Public Information Officer or appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies it.

So a denial under 8(1)(j) really involves three questions. First, is the information personal? Second, does it relate to a public activity or interest? Third, even if it is personal and private, does a larger public interest still tip the balance toward disclosure? A well-drafted request answers all three in your favour. To structure a request that survives this test, the AI RTI Drafter helps you frame the public-interest angle from the start.

In S. Savithramma v. Karnataka Information Commission, 2026:KHC:25434, the petitioner had sought, through RTI, the asset and liability statement of a Deputy Controller at the KSRTC Central Office. She alleged that the officer had obtained a sale deed over her property by fraudulent means and wanted his asset declaration to support her case. The KSRTC Public Information Officer denied the information, and the Karnataka Information Commission upheld that denial under Section 8(1)(j), holding that the statement had no relationship to public activity and that disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj upheld the denial. Paraphrasing the court's reasoning, the judgment makes these points. Being a public servant does not, by itself, make every piece of information about that person disclosable under RTI. A distinction has to be drawn between information about the discharge of public duties, which is open, and information about a public servant's private affairs, which is protected. Asset and liability declarations filed under service rules are personal information shielded by Section 8(1)(j), and they do not lose that protection simply because they were submitted to a government authority. Most importantly, mere allegations against an individual cannot by themselves convert personal information into public information, and a private litigant's interest in supporting their own civil or property claim is not the larger public interest that the RTI Act requires before privacy can be overridden.

This sits squarely within the established Supreme Court line. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212, the Supreme Court held that the service record, performance, assets, and personal matters of a government servant are personal information within Section 8(1)(j), to be disclosed only where a larger public interest is shown.

The whole subject turns on one idea: the RTI Act gives you a window into government, not into the personal life of every person who works for the government. When an officer signs a contract, decides a tender, sanctions a payment, or acts on a complaint, that is public activity, and the records are open. When the same officer files how much gold his family owns or what his bank balance is, that is private, even though a service rule made him file it with his department.

This is why the outcome is fact-specific. Routine service-rule asset filings of an ordinary government employee are protected. But there is an older and contrary line worth keeping in mind: asset declarations that are made a condition of public office, such as those filed by ministers or legislators or under specific transparency schemes, can be disclosable, because there the disclosure is itself part of the public accountability bargain. So it would be wrong to read this judgment as saying every asset disclosure is blocked. It says routine employee filings, sought to feed a private dispute, are blocked.

You can still get meaningful financial accountability from public servants if you tie your request to a public function rather than to private curiosity or a personal dispute.

1. Ask about the office, not the person. Seek records of decisions, sanctions, approvals, and the action taken on complaints, not the individual's private bank balance.
2. Anchor it to corruption or misuse of office. If you allege that an officer enriched himself through his post, ask for the inquiry file, the vigilance action, or the disproportionate-assets investigation, which are records of a public process.
3. Spell out the larger public interest. Do not assume it is obvious. State in the application why the public, and not just you, benefits from disclosure.
4. Separate your private dispute from public accountability. Savithramma teaches that a property fight, on its own, will not unlock a service-rule asset filing.

If your request is denied under Section 8(1)(j), the first appeal is where you make the public-interest case in writing.

1. Read the exact ground of denial. Confirm the PIO cited 8(1)(j) and identify which limb, personal information or invasion of privacy, they relied on.
2. Reframe your need away from any private dispute. Show how disclosure serves accountability of a public office, not your own litigation.
3. Cite the public-interest override built into 8(1)(j) itself, and argue, with facts, why it applies to your specific records.
4. Distinguish your case from Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212 and from S. Savithramma v. Karnataka Information Commission, 2026:KHC:25434 by showing your request targets a public function, not a private asset filing.
5. Keep the appeal narrow. Ask for the public-process record you can justify, and drop the parts that are plainly personal.

The First Appeal Builder walks you through each of these steps, and The RTI Playbook explains how to pitch the public-interest override so an appellate authority can act on it.

Not routinely. After S. Savithramma v. Karnataka Information Commission, 2026:KHC:25434, an ordinary employee's service-rule asset and liability declaration is personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and is denied unless a larger public interest is shown.

No. The Karnataka High Court held that mere allegations do not, by themselves, convert personal information into public information. You must show a genuine larger public interest, not just your own dispute.

It is a benefit to the public at large, such as exposing corruption or misuse of public office, that outweighs the individual's privacy. A private litigant's interest in winning a civil or property case does not, on its own, count.

Often not. Where asset disclosure is made a condition of holding public office, such as for legislators or under specific transparency rules, it can be disclosable, because the disclosure is part of public accountability. The Savithramma rule is about routine employee filings.

Information tied to the public office: salary drawn from public funds, the sanctioned post, and decisions like sanctions, contracts, and action on complaints. Personal records such as private assets, tax returns, and investments are normally protected.

File a first appeal and, if needed, a second appeal to the Information Commission. Reframe your request around a public function and argue the public-interest override clearly. The First Appeal Builder helps you structure this.

It applies the same principle the Supreme Court laid down in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212. It is persuasive and consistent across India, though every case still turns on its own facts.

If you want a public servant's financial information, do not ask for the person, ask about the office. Tie your request to a decision, a sanction, a contract, or an inquiry, and state your public-interest reason up front. Use the AI RTI Drafter to draft the application, and if you are denied under Section 8(1)(j), the First Appeal Builder helps you build the appeal that argues larger public interest.

• S. Savithramma v. The Karnataka Information Commission, 2026:KHC:25434, Karnataka High Court, Justice Suraj Govindaraj, 11 June 2026: https://www.verdictum.in/karnataka-high-court/s-savithramma-v-the-karnataka-information-commission-2026khc25434-1615734
• Deccan Herald report, Mere charges cannot convert personal data to public information, Karnataka High Court: https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/mere-charges-cant-convert-personal-data-to-public-information-karnataka-high-court-4036115
• Section 8(1)(j), Right to Information Act, 2005.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212.