The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission ruled that a son-in-law cannot seek personal details of his father-in-law under the RTI Act. The Commission held RTI cannot be misused to invade privacy or collect material for private disputes.
UTTAR PRADESH: The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission has determined that a son-in-law is not entitled to access personal information about his father-in-law such as salary, loans, and assets under the RTI Act.
State Information Commissioner Mohammed Nadeem, in an order dated January 7, stated,
“The objective of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.”
ALSO READ: Judicial Officers’ Complaints Are Private: Chhattisgarh High Court Bars RTI Disclosure
The case involves Kulwant Singh, who requested details regarding his father-in-law, Rishipal Singh, a retired revenue inspector, to use the information in a dowry case initiated by his wife. Kulwant filed his RTI application on July 27, 2025, with the Tehsildar of Najibabad in Bijnor district, seeking financial information about his father-in-law up until his retirement on January 1, 2015.
After not receiving the requested information, Kulwant appealed to the State Information Commission, asking for the Public Information Officer to be directed to provide the details. Reports indicate that Kulwant was accused by his wife of demanding a dowry of Rs 26 lakh, prompting him to seek information on his father-in-law’s financial status, including salary, GPF (General Provident Fund), loans, advances, and details of his movable and immovable properties.
Kulwant argued that since the individual in question is not an outsider but his father-in-law, the requested information was essential for the dowry-related case to ascertain whether the alleged dowry of Rs 26 lakh could have been realistically offered given his father-in-law’s finances.
ALSO READ: Advocates Cannot Use RTI to Seek Case Details for Clients’ Cases: CIC
In addressing the case, Commissioner Mohammad Nadeem noted that the Supreme Court has clarified in various rulings that salary details, income tax records, provident fund information, loans, family details, and property-related information are categorized as personal data that are generally not disclosed under the RTI Act.
The bench stated,
“Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the argument of being a son-in-law or seeking information for use in a lawsuit cannot be considered a larger public interest under the RTI Act,”
It further emphasized that,
“the objective of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.”
The bench advised that if Kulwant feels it is necessary to obtain such information for his defense, the proper course would be to pursue it in the court where his case is ongoing. He can procure this information through legal avenues, and if deemed necessary, the court may instruct the relevant department to provide it.
Ultimately, the bench found that ordering this information at their level did not align with the principles of the Right to Information Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.