The main legal point established is that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act prevails when the information sought is personal and lacks a public interest element, emphasizing the protection of personal information and the balancing of transparency with privacy rights.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The petitioner in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated 17.12.2008 (the impugned order] affirming the decision of the appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereafter, "the Information Act"] not to allow disclosure of the information sought.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the case are that the petitioner is a former officer of the Indian Air Force. He apparently got married in 2001. According to the averments, he had sought resignation from the Indian Air Force, which was granted on 30.09.2001. His wife was inducted in the Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) on 31.03.2005 and was posted at 4, Air Force Selection Board ("AFSB"), Varanasi. Eventually, differences cropped up between the two, and his wife applied for divorce. The petitioner caused to be served, through his counsel, an application to the Station Commander, 4 AFSB, requesting for information in respect of his wifes service records pertaining to all leave application forms submitted by her; attested copies of nomination of DSOP and other official documents with financial implications, and the changes made to them; record of investments made and reflected in the service documents of his wife, along with nominations thereof.

3. The information application was declined by the Public Information Officer, i.e. the Wing Commander of the 4, AFSB by his letter dated 25.04.2007 on the ground that the particulars sought for related to personal information, exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Information Act; that disclosure of such information had no relation with any public activity or interest and that it would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individual. The petitioner felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Information Act. The appeal was rejected by an order dated 25.01.2008 by the Air Vice Marshal, Senior Officer Incharge, Administration, of the Indian Air Force, who was the designated Appellate authority. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner preferred a second appeal to the Central Information Commissioner.

4. By the impugned order, the CIC, after discussing the arguments and pleas advanced, rejected the appeal. The relevant part of the impugned order, upholding the determination of the authorities, including the appellate authority is as follows:

During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that the information sought was required for producing before the Competent Court where a dispute was pending between him and Dr. Sandhya Verma and the information was necessary for fair trial. The Respondents submitted that the information was necessary pertained to personal information concerning Dr. Sandhya Verma, a Third Party and had no relationship to any public interest or activity and, therefore, exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The information which has been sought includes, attested copies of all the leave application forms submitted by Dr. S. Verma since she was posted to 4 AFSB, copies of nomination of DSOP/other official documents with financial implications and record of investment made and reflected thereon in service documents along with the nominations thereof, if explicitly made. The information sought is obviously personal information concerning Dr. Sandhya Verma, a Third Party. It is immaterial if Dr. Sandhya Verma happens to be the wife of the Appellant. The information sought does not seem to have any relationship to any public interest or public activity and has been expressly sought to be used as evidence in a dispute in a Court pending between the Appellant and Dr. Sandhya Verma. The decision of the CPIO, upheld by the Appellate Authority, in denying the information by invoking the exemption provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act seem to be absolutely right and just. We find no rea