The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper legal analysis and justification when directing disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act, as well as the need for clarity in the appeal procedure.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in WP.No.24131 of 2009: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Second Respondent culminating in the impugned proceedings C.No.33/08-09 dated 03.04.2009 and quash the same.

WP.No.24132 of 2009: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No.22 of 2005) as ultra vires the Constitution of India since it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by being arbitrary and violating proper standards and norms of fair procedure in the matter of dealing with First Appeals pertaining to disclosure of third party information.)

Common Order:

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw W.P.No.24132 of 2009 stating that the prayer therein is not pursued by the petitioner. He has also made an endorsement to that effect recording which, W.P.No.24132 of 2009 is dismissed as withdrawn.

2. This order thus disposes W.P.No.24131 of 2009, wherein, the challenge is to an order dated 03.04.2009, passed by the second respondent, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Range, Chennai/R2.

3. The petitioner is a noted film artist. He had, in the year 2008, started a regional political party, by name, Praja Rajyam. R4, upon whom several attempts were made to serve notice of this Writ Petition, albeit unsuccessful, is stated to be the political opponent of the petitioner. R4 had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2004 (in short ‘RTI Act’) before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPIO), Media Circle I/R3 (in short ‘CPIO’) seeking the following information in relation to the petitioner.

‘01. Sri Chiranjeevi (Telugu Cine Actor) has stared his film career from 1972 to 2008 (30 years) and acted in 148 films. Since which year Sri Chiranjeevi has started filing Income Tax Assessment. Since then in how many films he has acted and what is the remuneration he has taken for each film and filed the income tax returns accordingly.

02. Whether any Receipts have been furnished for authentication towards the remuneration taken for each film acted by Sri Chiranjeevi Furnish such information.

03. Whether the Producers who have paid the remuneration to Sri Chiranjeevi, have also filed the same returns as has been filed by Sri Chiranjeevi, with Income Tax Department. If so furnish the information.’

4. The premise upon which the information was sought, as the representation dated 12.01.2009 revealed, is that the petitioner had charged a remuneration of Rs.1,500/- for his first film Punaadirallu in 1978 and media reports indicated that in the film proximate to the representation filed, being Shanker Dada Zindabad, his remuneration has increased manifold to Rs.8.00 crores. Thus, and bearing in mind public interest, R4 had sought the information as aforesaid.

5. The scheme of RTI Act required a third party in respect of whom information was sought to be put to notice in terms of Section 11 thereof and accordingly, a notice had been issued to the petitioner on 13.01.2009 enclosing a copy of the application and calling for objections, if any, from him. On 21.01.2009, the petitioner responded putting forth his objections to the request for information on the ground that the information related to personal and confidential matters.

6. The petitioner submitted that the details of the income tax returns that were sought, in respect of the years 1972 to 2008, the remuneration of each film as well as reconciliation of the disclosures in the petitioner’s income tax returns, vis-à-vis the returns of the Producers who had effected payments to the petitioner, fell far outside the scope and ambit of the RTI Act. The provisions of Section 8 relating to exemption from disclosure were cited