Delhi High Court held husband’s ITRs are personal information under Right to Information Act 2005. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside CIC order, stressing disclosure only when larger public interest exists.
The Delhi High Court has held that a husband’s income tax returns are “personal information” and, as a rule, should not be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 unless the party seeking disclosure establishes a clear case of greater public interest.
While delivering the judgment, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed that the relevant details be provided to the wife in connection with a matrimonial dispute.
The High Court observed,
“In the instant petition, there can be no doubt that the information sought by Respondent No. 2 (wife) is ‘personal information’ of the petitioner,”
It further noted that making such disclosures would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into privacy.
The case began when the wife requested access to her husband’s income tax records, including details of his net taxable income from the financial year 2007–08 onward, to strengthen her case in ongoing maintenance proceedings. On her application, the CIC ordered the Income Tax Department to furnish the information. The husband challenged that direction before the High Court.
The husband argued that income tax returns are protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which allows withholding personal information where disclosure would infringe an individual’s right to privacy. Accepting the argument, the Court concluded that income tax returns squarely fall within the category of personal information and are generally not subject to public disclosure.
Regarding the exception for “larger public interest,” the Court cautioned against interpreting it too widely.
ALSO READ; Income Tax Dept Can’t Compel Lender PAN Disclosure: Madras High Court
It said,
“The Act was enacted to promote transparency in the working of public authorities. It could not have been the intention of the legislature to allow disclosure of personal information of individuals, having no bearing on the public at large. Therefore, the concept of ‘larger public interest’ cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act,”.
The Court also rejected the wife’s argument that she required the information to pursue her maintenance claim. It clarified that “Respondent No. 2 is not without remedy” and can obtain the necessary details through the appropriate processes available under matrimonial or maintenance proceedings.
Concluding that the CIC’s order could not be sustained in law, the High Court quashed the impugned decision and allowed the husband’s petition.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE