9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his order dated 6-10-2009 denied disclosure of information citing the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 (hereinafter "the Act"). Information was provided pertaining to the process of submitting tax evasion petition. 3. The Applicant preferred appeal dated 13-10-2009 before the FAA who adjudicated upon it vide his order of 6-11-2009 by upholding the order of the CPIO and dismissing the appeal. 4. The Applicant has come before this Commission in second appeal. The Appellant made an impassioned plea for disclosure of information sought by him on the grounds that he was a young man who is involved in defending himself in a criminal case against the State of Rajasthan pertaining to dowry related issues. He emphasized that the litigation was not a private matter against his wife/father-in-law and therefore, the denial of information could not be justified on the grounds that there was no public interest in the matter and that the issue was purely a personal one. The Appellant stated that in a welfare state, such as ours, the life and security of every individual was a matter which involved the state. Denial of information to him would result in a prolonged li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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." 10. Now I shall deal with each of the respective contentions raised by the Appellant in the appeal before me. 11. The Appellant has contended that the information pertaining to the Income-tax returns filed by his father-in-law is an information within the ambit of Proviso to section 8(1)(j), i.e. those IT returns cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature. Here, we look towards the enlargement of intent of this proviso by Hon ble Sanjiv Khanna J. in his decision dated 30-11-2009 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.. 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 AND 3607 OF 2007, wherein he stated " The proviso in the present cases is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and does not itself create any ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in the order." 12. The legislative mandate is absolutely clear on the front that the Income-tax Returns of an assessee are held by the Chief Commissioner, Income-tax only and such cannot be accessed by any other body or authority except when the Chief Commissioner himself is of the opinion that such returns be furnished to a third party in light of public interest. In R. K. Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120 it was held that factors to decide the public interest immunity would include (a) where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure; (b) where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect; (c) the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matter contained in the documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issue in relation to which the production is sought; (e) the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the likelihood of the injustice if the documents are not produced " It was further stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l information such as the IT Returns of an assessee unless the Applicant can prove that a "larger" public interest demands such disclosure. The expression "larger" cannot be defined or carved into a straight-jacketed formula and neither can it be easily disposed of. If the Applicant incessantly stresses on the argument that false dowry cases are a matter of "larger public interest" and that the information relating to IT returns of his father-in-law be furnished to him, then an equally challenging rebuttal could be that the Income-tax Act, which defines the procedure of disclosure of such IT Returns to him, is a public policy which has been enacted by the State keeping in mind the larger good of the society. It is not the case of the Respondents that objection to disclosure of the documents is taken on the ground that it belongs to a class of documents which are protected irrespective of their contents, because there is no absolute immunity for documents belonging to such class. 15. In my view, having assessed the factual situation and the legal reasoning at hand, the correct position of law is that the right forum for seeking the IT Returns of an assessee by a third person i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
