Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner) decided whether disclosure of income tax returns of the husband to wife under RTI Act is permissible or not.

Appellant had filed an application before the CPIO, Income Tax, Jodhpur seeking information with regard to the income tax returns filed by Mohammed Rafique for the period of 2017 to 2018.

Being dissatisfied from non-provision of the requested information, the appellant approached the Commission by filing a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act.

Decision

Commission on perusal of the records observed that the information sought by the appellant regarding the copies of income tax return of her husband, etc. is personal information of the third party which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Further, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012, decided on 03-10-2012wherein it was held that:

14. “The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

However, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 373 and Sunita Jain v. BSNL, WA No. 170 of 2015, decided on 15-05-2018, had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband from the employer held as under:

“While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No. 1 is getting. Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside.”

Bombay High Court’s decision in Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile v. Maharashtra SIC, WP No. 1766 of 2016, dated on 22-10-2018.

In view of the above-stated analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directed the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held and available with Public Authority for the period of 2017-18, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.

In view of the above observations, the appeal was disposed of. [Rahmat Bano v. CPIO, 2020 SCC OnLine CIC 1119, decided on 06-11-2020]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner) addressed the instant matter and highlighted the essence of provisions of Right To Information Act, 2005 in regard to third-party information.

Appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information officer, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking information regarding last five years Audit Report (2012-2017) of Betsy Elizabeth Trust.

On not receiving the requisite information, appellant filed the first appeal, later the second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission was filed on the ground of not receiving the information.

Decision

Commission observed that the appellant sought information related to Audit report (2012-2017) of Betsy Elizabeth Trust from the respondent public authority.

Further, the Commission noted that the respondent sought consent under Section 11 of the RTI Act from the third party and the said assesses denied disclosure of their information to the appellant.

Adding to the above, Commission opined that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is personal information of the third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Issue regarding “Personal Information”

Bench noted that the issue regarding the “personal information” held by an individual in its personal capacity and the personal information held by the entities/corporations/trusts in their private capacity. In regard to the said point, Delhi High Court’s decision in Naresh Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, (2015) 216 DLT was referred.

Commission also examined the nature of “fiduciary relationship” involved in the instant matter whereby the information of profitability of Prime Meiden Limited company was sought which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

While concluding the instant matter, the Commission observed that no larger public interest was disclosed by the appellant, hence CPIO’s response was agreed by the bench.

Lastly, the Commission observed that there was a delay in seeking consent from the third party and even more the respondent waited for two long years for the reply of the third party. The respondent should have adhered to the timelines of the RTI Act.

In view of the above observations, the appeal was disposed of. [J. Vinoth Priyakumar v. CPIO, 2020 SCC OnLine CIC 1120, decided on 06-11-2020]