2020 (7) TMI 759 - Other - Indian Laws

Seeking disclosure of details of the income tax returns of the husband of appellant - Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 - whether the appellant claiming to be the legally wedded wife of Mr. G H Sharanappa is entitled to seek details of his income tax returns? - HELD THAT - The decision dated 01-07-2009 of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Vijay Prakash v. UOI others 2009 (7) TMI 1364 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it has been clarified 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) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in public interest . In the matter at hand the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose - Since filing of the Income Tax Returns by an individual with the Income Tax Department is not a public activity and rather it is in the nature of an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes this information cannot be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest. From the words circumscribed under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005 it is vividly clear that any person other than the citizen making a request for information can be termed as third party . Therefore Mr. G H Sharanappa being a person other than the RTI applicant surely comes within the definition of third party . Moreover the CPIO has also not intended to disclose the information treating it as confidential and has rather pleaded that there is no public interest in the matter. This Commission also does not find any public interest which outweighs the harm caused in its disclosure. This Commission after considering the factual matrix of the case is of the opinion that in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter the appellant is not entitled to seek the details of the Income Tax Returns filed by the third party Mr. G H Sharanappa which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 - considering the aspect of marital discord between the husband and wife vis- -vis her right of maintenance this Commission is of the opinion that the respondent should consider providing only the limited information of the last six years i.e. the numerical figure(s) of the gross income of her husband Mr. G H Sharanappa within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding non-disclosure of Income Tax Returns
- Entitlement of legally wedded wife to seek details of husband's income tax returns
- Disclosure of income tax information in private disputes
- Definition of 'third party' under the RTI Act, 2005
- Balance between privacy rights and public interest in disclosing personal information

Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005:
The Commission referred to a Supreme Court judgment regarding the non-disclosure of income tax returns under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was established that details in income tax returns are considered personal information exempted from disclosure unless there is a larger public interest justifying such disclosure.

2. Entitlement of Legally Wedded Wife to Seek Details:
The Commission considered whether the appellant, claiming to be the legally wedded wife, is entitled to seek details of her husband's income tax returns. Referring to a High Court decision, it was clarified that in a private dispute between spouses, disclosure cannot be allowed unless it serves a larger public interest, which the appellant failed to establish in this case.

3. Disclosure of Income Tax Information in Private Disputes:
The Commission highlighted that filing income tax returns is not a public activity but an obligation to the State. Citing legal principles, it was emphasized that such information cannot be disclosed in the absence of larger public interest, especially in private disputes, unless justified by public interest.

4. Definition of 'Third Party' under the RTI Act, 2005:
The Commission defined 'third party' under the RTI Act as a person other than the citizen making the request for information. It concluded that the husband, as a person other than the RTI applicant, falls under this definition. The Commission found no public interest justifying the disclosure of the information sought.

5. Balance between Privacy Rights and Public Interest:
Considering various judicial precedents, the Commission emphasized the protection of personal information from unwarranted invasion of privacy. It was noted that personal information, including income tax returns, is entitled to protection unless there is a stipulation of larger public interest. The Commission balanced the appellant's right to information with the husband's privacy rights and ordered limited disclosure of the husband's gross income for the last six years to assist in the matrimonial case.

In conclusion, the Commission disposed of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of balancing privacy rights and public interest in disclosing personal information, especially in private disputes.