Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.M. SAVANT, J.
Shailesh Gandhi - Petitioner
Versus
The Central Information Commission & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8753 of 2013
Decided On : 11-06-2015
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 - SECTION 8(1)(J) - EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION - PERSONAL INFORMATION - LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST - INCOME TAX RETURNS - PRIVACY - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1950 - SECTION 33A - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY CANDIDATES - ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 324 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RIGHT TO PRIVACY - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - PROVISO TO SECTION 8(1)(J) - PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an RTI activist and former Central Information Commissioner, filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking certain information, including the Income Tax Returns of the Respondent, a public servant. The CPIO denied the information, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure unless larger public interest is involved. The First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO's decision. The Petitioner then filed a Second Appeal with the Central Information Commission, which also dismissed the appeal, relying on a 5-Member Bench judgment holding that Income Tax Returns are personal information exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Income Tax Returns of the Respondent constitute personal information and are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court further held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is a statutory exemption that must operate as a rule, and only in exceptional cases, would disclosure be permitted, that too for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest. The Court also held that the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), which states that information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any person, cannot be interpreted in a manner that would render the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) meaningless.
Issues: 1. Whether the Income Tax Returns of a public servant are personal information exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005? 2. Whether the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is absolute or can be overridden in cases of larger public interest? 3. Whether the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), which states that information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any person, can be interpreted in a manner that would render the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) meaningless?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Income Tax Returns of a public servant are personal information exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors. and R.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr. 2. The Court held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is a statutory exemption that must operate as a rule, and only in exceptional cases, would disclosure be permitted, that too for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussan Abbas Rizvi & Anr. 3. The Court held that the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), which states that information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any person, cannot be interpreted in a manner that would render the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) meaningless, relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vijay Prakash v. Union of India.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Petitioner's Writ Petition, holding that the impugned order of the Central Information Commissioner, confirming the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority and the CPIO, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity for the Court to interfere in its Writ Jurisdiction.
1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.
2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 15-5-2013 passed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. the Central Information Commission by which order, the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) came to be dismissed and resultantly, the orders passed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO for short) of the Income Tax Department and the order dated 5-2-2013 passed by the First Appellate Authority came to be confirmed.
3. The Petitioner above named claims to be an RTI activist and is a former Central Information Commissioner (CIC). Presently, the Petitioner is the Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee set up by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to advise on RTI, in a honorary capacity.
4. The Petitioner on or about 21-11-2012 made an application under Section 6 of the said Act, to the CPIO of the Income Tax Department inter alia requesting certain information and more particularly the Income Tax Returns and balance sheets of the Respondent No.3 herein for the preceding three years. The Petitioner in the said application justified the information sought by stating to the following effect: “There is a larger public interest in disclosing this information to compare his affidavit given to the Election Commission with his Income Tax returns”. Since the information related to the Respondent No.3 who is a third party, it seems that in terms of Section 11 of the said Act, a letter was addressed by the CPIO to the Respondent No.3. A reply was received from the Respondent No.3 opposing the disclosure of any information. The CPIO of the Income Tax Department thereafter by her order dated 2-1-2013 denied the said information sought by the Petitioner. It was observed in the said order that the information sought for has no relationship to any public activity or interest and therefore does not qualify in view of the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act. The Petitioner was however informed that if he is aggrieved by the said order, he may file an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority whose designation was mentioned in the said order.
5. The Petitioner accordingly filed a First Appeal under Section 19 of the said Act. The said Appeal inter alia contained the grounds on which the order was challenged, one of the grounds in the Appeal was that the disclosure of the information to another person cannot be construed as being unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Another ground that was set out was that the fulfillment of the statutory requirements would not be covered by the exemption contemplated under Section 8(1)(j). A further ground which was set out was that the information which cannot be denied to Parliament, a citizen would be entitled to the same information, as Parliament itself derived its legitimacy from the citizens, and lastly it was set out that the standard of disclosure for those who want to be public servants has been set higher by the Apex Court in the Judgment in Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. (ADR) (2002)5 Supreme Court Cases 294). The said order was therefore challenged on the ground that exemption under Section 8(1)(j) does not apply.
6. The First Appeal was considered by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-18(2) who by his order dated 5-2-2013 rejected the said Appeal. The First Appellate Authority reiterated the grounds on which the information was denied by the CPIO. The First Appellate Authority referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GirishRamchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors. (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 212) wherein the Apex Court has held that the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax returns is personal information which stands exempt
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
