RTI Disclosure of Third-Party Income Tax Returns Denied Under Section 8(1)(j): Central Information Commission - 2026-06-09

Privacy Overrides Disclosure: CIC Rejects RTI Bid for Third-Party Tax Records

In a significant decision clarifying the boundaries of privacy under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has reaffirmed that financial records, specifically Income Tax Returns (ITR), are "personal information" exempt from disclosure. The ruling came in the case of Haseen Jahan vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax , where the appellant sought the tax details of a third party.

Background of the Dispute

The appellant, Ms. Haseen Jahan, filed an RTI application requesting the ITRs and related financial documents for the years 2015–2023 belonging to an individual identified in the application as her husband. The Income Tax Department (CPIO) denied the request, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information that has no bearing on public activity or interest. The First Appellate Authority upheld this decision, leading the appellant to approach the Central Information Commission for a second appeal.

Arguments and Legal Conflict

The appellant contended that as a spouse, she was entitled to knowledge regarding the remuneration of the respondent, citing previous commission orders regarding marital transparency. Conversely, the Department represented by Shri Ravinder Kumar (Assistant Commissioner/CPIO) argued that: 1. The information requested pertained to an individual's private financial records. 2. The appellant failed to establish a current legal marital status, as it was confirmed that the parties had divorced in early 2023. 3. Establishing the identity and intent of information seekers is vital to prevent the misuse of personal data.

The Commission’s Legal Analysis

The Commission, presided over by Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, analyzed the intersection of privacy and transparency. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner , the bench noted that income tax returns are strictly private documents.

Crucially, the CIC also referenced a contemporary Delhi High Court judgment, Kapil Agarwal vs. CPIO , which settled the contention regarding the use of RTI in maintenance disputes. The court clarified that the RTI Act is not a workaround for discovery processes in matrimonial and maintenance litigation.

Key Observations

The Commission’s ruling highlighted several pivotal points regarding the limits of the RTI Act:

• "Income tax returns of an individual would fall under personal information, and as such, would be exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act."
• "The concept of ‘larger public interest’ cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act."
• "The contention... that the disclosure of the petitioner’s income details under the RTI Act is necessary for the proper adjudication of her maintenance claim, cannot be accepted."
• "The parties shall be at liberty to take all remedies available in law for requiring the other spouse to place on record the affidavit as mandated under Rajnesh [vs. Neha & Anr.]."

Final Decision: A Path for Proper Procedure

The CIC set aside any notion that the RTI route could bypass judicial discovery in family courts. Citing the Supreme Court’s mandate in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. , the Commission emphasized that maintenance claims must be settled through the submission of mandated "Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities" in the relevant court proceedings.

By dismissing the appeal, the CIC reinforced that the RTI Act is an instrument for public accountability, not a tool for obtaining personal financial leverage in civil disputes. The judgment serves as a clear warning to litigants that private tax records remain protected under the law, and that procedural justice should be pursued through appropriate judicial forums.