The marital status mentioned by the appellant’s wife in the bank account opening form like whether Single/ Married/ Separated/ Divorcee - CIC: The protection from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted due to a private dispute between husband and wife

Appellant requested for status mentioned by his wife in the bank account opening form regarding her marital status as a matrimonial dispute is pending before the Hon’ble Family Court - CIC: The basic protection afforded by 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. cannot be lifted due to a private dispute between husband and wife unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’

O R D E R

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 18.02.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 18.09.2018and first appeal dated 05.11.2018:-

• The photocopy of the status mentioned by the appellant’s wife Nisha in the bank account opening from regarding her marital status like whether Single/Married/Separated/Divorcee.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.09.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda (Former Dena Bank), Panchkula, Haryana, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 22.10.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 05.11.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 01.12.2018. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 18.02.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 18.02.2019 inter alia on the grounds that desired information was not provided by respondent. He in his second appeal stated that he is husband of Mrs. Nisha and has every right to know about the marital status of his spouse which could be decisive factor in deciding the maintenance order. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.10.2018 replied that information sought pertained to third party, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and the disclosure of which was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 01.12.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rocky Jaryal, Law Officer, Bank of Baroda, Chandigarh, attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The respondent inter alia submitted that the appellant sought information pertained to third party i.e. his wife Mrs. Nisha, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence it was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that due reply has been given by the respondent vide their letters dated 22.10.2018 and 01.12.2018. The perusal of the grounds raised in the second appeal revealed that the appellant requested for status mentioned by his wife Nisha in the bank account opening form regarding her marital status. Since, a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and his wife pending before the Hon’ble Family Court. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its decision dated 01.07.2009 [W.P.(C) 803/2009 Vijay Prakash vs. UOI and others] observed that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted 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. cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’. The Court had further held that the transparency values have to be reconciled with legal interest protected by law, such as other fundamental rights, particularly the fundamental right to privacy. The Commission does not see any larger public interest outweighing the other person’s right to privacy. With the above observations and discussions, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Suresh Chandra)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Keshav Anand v. Bank of Baroda in Second Appeal No. CIC/DENAB/A/2019/107456, Date of decision: 16.04.2021