IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Amit Meharia - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Of Police & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.2211 Of 2021 & CM Appl. No.16337 Of 2021 With W.P.(C) No.2246 Of 2021 & CM Appl. No.16335 Of 2021 With W.P.(C) No.2247 Of 2021 & CM Appl. No.16333 Of 2021 And W.P.(C) No.2249 Of 2021 & CM Appl. No.16334 Of 2021
Decided On : 17-08-2021
RTI Act, 2005 - Right to Information - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 8(1)(j) - The court upheld the denial of information sought under the RTI Act, 2005, invoking Section 8(1)(j) as the information sought was deemed to cause unwarranted invasion of privacy and did not serve a larger public interest. The petitioner was directed to seek necessary documents through appropriate legal channels.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed four RTI applications seeking information related to complaints lodged by his estranged wife against her previous husbands and their family members. The information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, citing unwarranted invasion of privacy and lack of larger public interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the information sought was sensitive and related to personal information, not just of the petitioner and his estranged wife, but also of the individuals against whom the complaints were filed. The court upheld the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Issues: The main issue was whether the denial of information under the RTI Act, 2005, invoking Section 8(1)(j) was justified, and whether the petitioner had alternative legal channels to obtain the necessary documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, was justified as the information sought was deemed to cause unwarranted invasion of privacy and did not serve a larger public interest. The petitioner was directed to seek necessary documents through appropriate legal channels.
Final Decision: The court upheld the denial of information under the RTI Act, 2005, and directed the petitioner to seek the necessary documents through appropriate legal channels. The petitions were disposed of with no orders as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Prathiba M. Singh, J.)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present four petitions have been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 5th January, 2021 passed in Second Appeal by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter ‘CIC’) in four separate cases arising out of four applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter “RTI Act, 2005”). The said RTI applications dated 28th June, 2018 were filed by the Petitioner herein, seeking information relating to the complaints lodged by his estranged wife, Ms. Abhilasha Malhotra, impleaded as Respondent No.4 herein, against her previous two husbands and their family members.
3. The Petitioner was married to Respondent No.4 Ms. Abhilasha Malhotra on 10th December, 2017. Various disputes arose between the parties in their matrimonial life leading to various complaints and proceedings. The following proceedings are stated to be pending between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4.
ii) A criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.4 against the Petitioner being FIR No.78/2018 under Section 498A/406/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Mahila Court, Dwarka, Delhi, where the Charge Sheet has been filed against the Petitioner and his family members.
iii) A General Diary entry dated 09th March 2018 lodged by the father of the Petitioner at the Alipore Police Station, Kolkata in respect of the matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4.
4. The present petitions arise out of the RTI query which was filed by the Petitioner under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
“(b) Particulars of information required
(i) Details of information required :
a. Whether any complaint was lodged by Abhilasha Malhotra, resident of 361, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi 110019. P. S. Chittaranjan Park under Section 154 Cr. P.C and Section 498A/ 406/377/34 Indian Penal Code?
b. Steps undertaken pursuant to the complaint
c. Status of the complaint
d. Copy of the investigation report
(ii) Period for which information asked: January, 2013 to December, 2015 (both months inclusive)
(iii) Other details”
II. The particulars of the information sought by the Petitioner under the second RTI application are set out hereunder:
“(b) Particulars of information required
(i) Details of information required: Whether any complaint has been lodged before CAW, Delhi by Abhilasha Malhotra, resident of 361, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi 110019. P. S. Chittaranjan Park.
Kindly provide following information
a. Copy of the complaint lodged by Abhilasha Malhotra.
b. Copy of the office order for the enquiry in this regard.
c. Name of the members of the enquiry committee.
d. Date of Enquiry.
e. Copy of the enquiry report.
f. Final decision of the competent authority
(ii) Period for which information asked: January, 2013 to December, 2015 (both months inclusive).
(iii) Other details”
III. The particulars of the information sought by the Petitioner under the third RTI application are set out hereunder:
“(b) Particulars of information required
(i) Details of information required: Please refer to complaint lodged on 04th January, 2016 by Abhilasha Malhotra (Wife) resident of 361, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi 110019 P.S. Chittaranjan Park against Pranav Kumar (Husband), r
The RTI Act cannot be invoked to disclose private information that lacks public interest or is accessible through other legal avenues, particularly in sensitive personal matters.
Requests for personal information must demonstrate public interest; privacy rights protected under RTI Act exemptions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that personal information sought under the Right to Information Act must have a relationship to a public activity or interest and its disclosure sh....
Public authorities must provide clear reasons to justify the withholding of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act based on how it impedes investigations; mere assertions are insufficient.
Information pertaining to disciplinary proceedings, corruption complaints, and performance reports of public servants constitutes personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and is exem....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.