Break-ups of young couples’ marriages have been a common phenomenon since the past decade or so and it has been reflected in the Right to Information (RTI) space, with either of the estranged spouses seeking information on their respective spouse’s personal information like income-tax returns, salaries, investments and so on.
There have been several past central information commission decisions which have ordered income-tax offices to bypass the `personal information’ exemption clause under Section 8 of the RTI Act in such cases and release information on the ex-spouse’s basic income details.
Early this week, on 21 October 2024, central information commissioner (CIC) Vinod Kumar Tiwari ordered that the RTI applicant (name withheld) should submit detailed proof of her being legally married and that the divorce matter is in the judicial court, within four weeks; to procure the required information.
CIC Tiwari, in his order, directed that the central public information officer (CPIO) of the income-tax office, Gurgaon should ascertain that the RTI applicant “is the legally wedded wife of xxxxxx xxxxxx and there is a maintenance case/ matrimonial case pending before the judicial court. She is directed to submit complete relevant documents before the respondent public authority, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.”
On receipt of the same, CIC Tiwari has directed the CPIO of the income-tax office to “provide the generic details of the net taxable income/ gross income” of the estranged husband for the period asked for in the RTI application, free of cost, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from her. No other personal information of the third party can be divulged to the appellant under the RTI Act.
The RTI applicant had sought the following information way back in January 2023 for the period between 2021 and 2023:
* Income earned by xxxxx xxxxx
* Details of taxable/ gross/ net income
* Salary earned, income from other sources, expenses incurred, etc. related to his income
* His properties and assets
* Rebates, exemptions, etc. if any claimed by him
* All his bank accounts linked with his above-mentioned PAN
CPIO Sandeep Giri predictably declined information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, stating it would cause an “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual” and that it “does not have any relationship to any public activity or interest.”
CIC Tiwari, reflecting on the earlier CIC decisions on this issue, observed that “It is relevant to note that this bench has dealt with cases bearing the same factual matrix and the stance that has been maintained by it so far is that certain information sought for in the above mentioned RTI application pertains to the personal information of a third party and stands duly exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
However, he added that “A judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of central public information officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra, wherein the import of ‘personal information’ envisaged under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank vs. CS Shyam; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. central information commissioner & Ors and RK Jain vs. Union of India.”
The exemption clauses in personal information include thus: “Precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that:
- Personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information.
- Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information.
- Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information.
- Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”
In the case of disputes between a husband and wife, CIC Tiwari referred to a 2009 Delhi High Court ruling (Vijay Prakash vs Union of India). The court said that in private matters like this, the protection against disclosure provided by Section 8(1)(j) should not be removed. However, CIC Tiwari also mentioned several high court orders where the income-tax authorities in Bengaluru filed cases with the Karnataka High Court. In these cases, the court allowed the 'gross income' of a spouse to be disclosed, citing the right to maintenance.
In one of the second appeal decisions in 2018 by CIC Prof Shridhar Acharyulu, he had opined that “Information about assets, income and investments of spouses cannot be protected as personal information between spouses, in view of the public interest in the maintenance of families and domestic peace. The proviso to section 8(1) (j) read with section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act entitled the appellant to get information because of overwhelming public interest and her interest in securing adequate maintenance for their daughter.”
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
If the matter is in court, then the court can demand the information being sought by this person.
RTI should be restricted to the public domain otherwise it will get bogged down in endless personal disputes.