2018 (8) TMI 1601 - HC - Indian Laws

Information denied under RTI Act - petitioner denied the information on the ground that the information sought for by the petitioner was a third party information and in the nature of personal information and thus, exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - whether the details of profit declared by a third party and its Income tax returns is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act? Held that - The three principal conditions must be met for the said clause to be applicable first, that the information sought must qualify as personal information; second, that disclosure of such information should have no relationship to any public activity or interest; and third, that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual - Even if the aforesaid conditions are met, such information can be disclosed if the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande 2012 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT , the question whether Income tax returns are personal information is no longer res integra, where it was held that the petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Indisputably, the information sought for by the petitioner is personal information. Such information could be disclosed only if the respondent could establish that disclosure of such information was justified by larger public interest. Even if the PIO was satisfied that disclosure of such information was justified, the PIO was required to follow the procedure given under Section 11 of the Act; that is, the PIO was required to give a notice to the concerned employee stating that he intends to disclose the information and invite the person concerned to make submissions on the question whether such information ought to be disclosed. Admittedly, no such notice was issued - Mere apprehension that a third party has declared income, which is lower than the true income, cannot justify disclosure of Income Tax Returns in larger public interest. The impugned order directing the disclosure of personal information cannot be sustained - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
3. Justification for denying information related to Income Tax Returns under personal information exemption.
4. Consideration of larger public interest for disclosure of personal information.
5. Compliance with procedures under Section 11 of the RTI Act for disclosure of personal information.

Issue 1: Impugning CIC's Order
The petitioner challenged the CIC's order directing the provision of information sought by the respondent regarding Sales Turnover Figure and Net Profit Figure of a company for specific financial years and its Income Tax Return. The CIC also called for justification under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for failing to provide the information within the prescribed time.

Issue 2: Denial of Information under Section 8(1)(j)
The petitioner initially denied the information, citing it as third-party and personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent appealed to the FAA and later to the CIC under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, leading to the impugned order for disclosure.

Issue 3: Justification for Denying Income Tax Returns
The petitioner contended that the denial was justified under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, referring to a Supreme Court decision where personal information, including income tax returns, was considered exempt unless larger public interest justified disclosure. The respondent alleged tax evasion by the company to argue for disclosure.

Issue 4: Consideration of Larger Public Interest
The court analyzed the conditions for disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, emphasizing that personal information can be disclosed if larger public interest justifies it. The court referenced previous judgments highlighting the conflict between freedom of information and personal privacy, emphasizing the need for a balance and mechanisms for disclosure based on public interest.

Issue 5: Compliance with Section 11 Procedures
The court noted that even if disclosure was justified by larger public interest, the Public Information Officer (PIO) should follow procedures under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The court found that no such notice was issued in this case, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order directing disclosure of personal information could not be sustained.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that mere suspicion of underreported income did not justify the disclosure of Income Tax Returns without following the prescribed procedures under the RTI Act.