Court dismisses petition seeking disclosure of police action records related to FIR, affirming protection of third-party privacy despite pending civil litigation.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 7, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Kirti Singh, dismissed a writ petition filed by Pavitar Singh seeking disclosure of police and government action records under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The case arose from an RTI application requesting complete and certified copies of the action taken report, inquiry records, settlement affidavits, and other documents concerning FIR No.0093 dated November 22, 2024, registered at Police Station Kheri Gandian, District Patiala.
The petitioner, Mr. Pavitar Singh, sought these documents claiming their relevance to ongoing civil proceedings related to a land dispute. However, the Punjab State Information Commission had earlier declined the disclosure, relying on the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which protects third-party information from mandatory disclosure. The FIR in question named Jasvir Ram as the complainant and unknown persons as accused, with the petitioner neither being a complainant nor an accused.
Justice Kirti Singh emphasized that while Section 6(2) of the RTI Act does not require applicants to state reasons for seeking information, this provision does not override the exemptions contained in Section 8. The Court clarified that the mere fact that information is held by a public authority does not automatically entitle the applicant to its disclosure, especially when the information encompasses third-party details.
The Court further observed that the petitioner's reliance on the pendency of civil litigation and the supposed public interest did not outweigh the statutory exemption protecting privacy and confidentiality. It was noted that the information might be useful to the petitioner in his civil case, but such private interest does not convert the information into a matter of public interest warranting disclosure under the RTI Act.
The judgment also underscored the limited scope of judicial review over orders passed by State Information Commissions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court does not function as an appellate authority but may only intervene where there is a manifest error, jurisdictional defect, or perversity in the Commission's decision. No such infirmity was found in the present case.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Punjab State Information Commission, affirming the protection of third-party information under the RTI Act and dismissing the writ petition. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the underlying land dispute or the pending civil proceedings, restricting its analysis strictly to the legality of the order under the RTI framework.
This judgment clarifies the extent of information disclosure under the RTI Act, particularly in cases involving sensitive third-party data linked to police investigations, reinforcing the balance between transparency and privacy.
Bottom Line:
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Disclosure of third-party information - Information sought cannot be disclosed if it constitutes third-party information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, even if the applicant asserts its relevance in pending civil proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Right to Information Act, 2005 Sections 6(2), 8(1)(j); Constitution of India Articles 226, 227
