Husband's Income Tax Returns Are Personal Information, Not Disclosable Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a husband's income tax returns constitute “personal information” and are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure. The court set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing their disclosure to his wife in a matrimonial dispute.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that income-related details sought by the wife did not fall within the “larger public interest” exception and that disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

“In the instant petition, there can be no doubt that the information sought by Respondent No. 2 is 'personal information' of the petitioner,” the Court observed.

The case arose from a challenge by the husband to a CIC order directing the Income Tax Department to furnish his net taxable income details from the financial year 2007–08 onwards. The request had been made by his wife in the context of a pending maintenance claim arising out of matrimonial proceedings.

The husband contended that such information was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as it was personal in nature and its disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of his privacy.

Accepting the contention, the court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., which held that income tax returns fall within the ambit of “personal information” and are ordinarily exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

On the scope of the “larger public interest” exception, the Court underscored that it must be interpreted in line with the object of the law.

“The Act was enacted to promote transparency in the working of public authorities. It could not have been the intention of the legislature to allow disclosure of personal information of individuals, having no bearing on the public at large. Therefore, the concept of 'larger public interest' cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act,” the Court said.

Rejecting the wife's argument that disclosure was necessary for adjudication of her maintenance claim, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, noting that both parties are required to file affidavits of their income, assets, and liabilities in such proceedings.

The court observed that “Respondent No. 2 (wife) is not without remedy” and can seek disclosure through the mechanism provided in maintenance proceedings.

Finding the CIC's directions unsustainable in law, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the husband's petition.

For Petitioner: Advocate Vineet Sinha, Advocate Ankita Gupta

For Respondent: Advocate Manish Raghav, Advocate Prakash Srivastava, Advocate Rajan Thakur, Advocate Smriti Dubey (for Respondent No. 2)