The Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) has clarified that the income tax returns and related financial details of a taxpayer constitute “personal information” within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and are exempt from disclosure unless the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest warrants such disclosure.
The Court pointed out that an individual’s need for the financial information of their spouse to substantiate a claim for maintenance in a matrimonial dispute does not, by itself, meet the threshold of ‘larger public interest’ required to override the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Essentially, the High Court explained that the appropriate and lawful mechanism for a spouse to obtain the income tax returns and financial records of the other spouse in the context of maintenance proceedings is not through the provisions of the RTI Act, but by making an application to the competent court adjudicating the maintenance claim.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the position is authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, which categorically held that details disclosed in income tax returns are ‘personal information’ and stand exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest justifies it. Such information is quintessentially personal, furnished under statutory compulsion with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
The Bench opined that the relationship between the Income Tax Department and an individual taxpayer partakes of the nature of a fiduciary relationship, as the taxpayer furnishes detailed personal financial information in a position of trust. However, the Bench found it unnecessary to give a conclusive finding on this, as the protection under Section 8(1)(j) was sufficiently broad to cover the information sought.
Moving ahead, the Bench observed that the statutory definition of ‘third party’ under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act is plain and unambiguous, meaning any person other than the citizen making the request. Therefore, a husband squarely falls within this definition when his wife is the applicant, and the matrimonial relationship does not alter this statutory characterisation, although it may be a relevant factor in assessing ‘larger public interest’.
At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that the obligation to maintain a spouse is a statutory right of considerable social importance. However, it cautioned that an individual maintenance dispute, though meritorious, remains primarily a private matter between spouses. It does not, by itself, satisfy the statutory test of “larger public interest” under Section 8(1)(j), which postulates an interest that extends beyond the individual parties to the dispute.
The Bench made a pivotal observation that the RTI Act is not the appropriate mechanism for obtaining evidence for private litigation. Rather, the proper course for a spouse is to invoke the procedural mechanisms available before the competent court adjudicating the maintenance claim, such as the power to summon documents under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Code of Civil Procedure. This judicial process provides far more appropriate safeguards for assessing relevance, protecting confidentiality, and balancing the competing interests of the parties than the ‘relatively blunt instrument’ of an RTI application.
Lastly, the Bench observed that Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, and Section 22 of the RTI Act can be harmoniously construed. While Section 22 gives the RTI Act an overriding effect, the RTI Act itself contains exemptions under Section 8. Therefore, an RTI application for tax returns is not barred per se, but the information remains protected under Section 8(1)(j), and Section 138 reinforces the confidential character of such information.
Briefly, the case originates from a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by Respondent No. 1, who is the wife of Zafar Ali Asar Ali Ansari, seeking copies of her husband’s Income Tax Returns, details of tax paid, and associated bank details for the Assessment Years 2012-2017. The information was required to substantiate her claim for maintenance in proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as claimed that the courts had awarded a low maintenance amount due to a lack of specific evidence of her husband’s income.
The Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Income Tax Department, the Petitioner in this case, rejected the application, invoking Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The rejection was based on the grounds that the information was third-party information held by the department in a fiduciary capacity and was therefore exempt from disclosure. This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Authority, who reiterated that the information was exempt and no larger public interest had been established to warrant its disclosure.
Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC), which allowed the appeal and directed the Petitioner to furnish the requested information. Aggrieved by this order, the Income Tax Officer approached the High Court, seeking to quash the CIC’s order.
Appearances:
Advocates M. Dilip and Y.V. Raviraj., for the Petitioner
Advocate Kemparaju and DSGI Shanthi Bhushan, for the Respondent
