Should personal details like IT returns be disclosed under RTI?
22 Nov, 2013
An application was filed by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Income Tax department under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking to get copies of income tax returns of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister and NCP leader Ajit Pawar. The income tax department issued a letter to Ajit Pawar seeking his views on the issue as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. As Mr. Pawar opposed disclosure of such information, the department sent a reply to the applicant stating that the information could not be provided as it was related to a third party and hence exempted under Section 8(1)(j)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
of RTI Act.
The order was upheld by the first appellate authority and subsequently by the Central Information Commission. However, the applicant then approached the Bombay High Court contending that the information should not fall under section 8(1)(j)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
because as per the RTI Act any information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a state Legislature shall not be denied to any person. He also cited a Supreme Court ruling which said that the citizens have a right to know about the assets of a public servant.
The applicant also put forward some Supreme Court judgments supporting his view that though the information sought was personal in nature but it was in larger public interest as Mr. Pawar is an elected representative. The High Court judge has taken on record the judgments and posted the matter for further hearing saying that he would first go through them.