Info on assets of IAS officers not confidential

CHENNAI: Information on the assets declared by IAS officers cannot be denied to RTI applicants on the grounds that they are confidential or private, the Madras High Court ruled on Tuesday. A division bench comprising justices D Murugesan and K K Sasidharan gave the ruling while passing orders on a writ appeal from RTI activist V Madhav.On February 12, 2009, Madhav had applied to the public information officer (PIO), Public Department, seeking permission to inspect five latest statements of assets submitted by 10 IAS officers, namely the Chief Secretary and the nine secretaries of the departments of Finance, Industries, Health and Family Welfare, Agriculture, PWD, Housing and Urban Development, Home, Prohibition and Excise, Rural Development, Panchayati Raj and Revenue. The PIO rejected the plea, claiming that the information was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Madhav filed appeals before the appellate authority and the State Information Commission, which upheld the rejection order. He then filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court and a single judge confirmed the rejection order on February 2, 2010. Hence, the present appeal.The bench said that the “right to information which is recognised as a fundamental right, cannot be denied on the ground that it is not accessible by the public authority, particularly no restriction for such accessibility is shown to us in the form of a rule. Hence, the reliance placed by the single judge on Section 8(1)(j) to reject the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted.’’The argument that the documents were confidential was no longer valid in view of a circular issued by the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension on April 4 this year, following which details of immovable assets had been hosted on the web, the judges said.Administrative efficiency could be achieved only with transparency and access to the asset details furnished by its officers, including IAS officers, to the RTI applicant. While setting aside the single judge’s order, the bench, however, said applicants should specify the name of the officer on whom information is sought.