Personal information of a third party is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless larger public interest justifies it.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Request for personal information - Appellant sought income tax returns of her husband, which was denied on grounds of privacy and lack of public interest - The First Appellate Authority directed the disclosure of generic income details, which was subsequently provided - The Commission found the appellant satisfied with the information received. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Exemption from disclosure - Information relating to personal matters of a third party is exempt unless larger public interest is demonstrated - The Commission upheld the denial of specific personal information while allowing generic details. (Paras 3-4)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking her husband's income tax returns for three assessment years, which was denied citing privacy concerns under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority later directed the provision of generic income details, which the appellant received and found satisfactory.

Findings of Court:
The Commission noted that the appellant's purpose was served as she received the requested information, and thus no further intervention was necessary.

Issues: The main issue was whether the requested information could be disclosed under the RTI Act, considering privacy and public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that personal information of a third party is exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is established, affirming the First Appellate Authority's decision to provide generic income details instead of specific returns.

Result: Appeal disposed of.

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2023 (online) seeking the following information:

“I and on behalf of my daughter Hitanshi Bhatnagar(age 7) humbly request you to furnish me the following information through section 6 & 7 of the RTI Act 2005, I and my daughter Hitanshi Bhatnagar generally try to collect this information for canvassing my case in the Allahabad High Court (case no:922/2019) for grant of maintenance and domestic violence (case no:335/2017).

In this context you are kindly requested to provide me the following documents.

IT Return of my husband Mr. Ashutosh bhatnagar (Pan No: ****8063E, Bank: SBI bikaner, Acc no*******, DOB:22/**/19**)

1. for the following assessment year 2021 to 2022(ITR 2020-21). 2. for the following assessment year 2022 to 2023(ITR 2021-22). 3. for the following assessment year 2023 to 2024(ITR 2022-23).

Whatsoever information you would provide me on paper, that paper should be duly signed and clearly stamped by some competent authority. If you use the backside of that paper for providing me the information, please get that side also duly signed and clearly stamped by some competent authority. It is requested that, the applicant is a citizen of India, would like to receive the above said information at most urgent on the address mentioned above. The information should therefore be provided.

BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No CIC/RM/A/2012/000038/LS dated 03.06.2013 given by Information Commissioner Shri M. L. Sharma BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No 1816/IC/(A)/2008 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583 Dated 10th Jan, 2008(In this matter husband asked PF detail of wife. CPID denied citing section 8(1)(j).CIC directed CPIO to provide information to husband with remark The appellants financial interest is affected in the matter, as he is seeking legal relief from the court.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.07.2023 stating as under:

“The RTI application of the Applicant was received in this office on 28.0.2022. Vide this RTI application the applicant has requested to provide following information relating to her husband shri Mr. Ashutosh Bhatnagar having PAN: ******63E:

1. Copy of Income Tax Return for year 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 for PAN: ******63E.

The RTI application filed by you is disposed off as under:

As the information relates to third party (Ashutosh Bhatnagar), he has already filed an application for not to share his personal details like ITR or Property or EPFO or any other.

Further, the information sought for by the Applicant is exempt from disclosure in terms of the sub sections of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, which is reproduced as under:-

8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen.-

(j) Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

As the information sought by the Applicant falls within the purview of the section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, the information sought for is personal information of third party disclosure of which does not involve any larger public interest. The information being in the personal nature as defined in section 8(1)(j) of The RTI Act, the same cannot be provided to the Applicant.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.08.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

A written submission dated 19.03.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:

1. In this case, an application m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1700

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONVinod Kumar Tiwari, JEkta Bhatnagar – AppellantVersusChief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Jaipur – RespondentCIC/CCITJ/A/2023/147039

Personal information of a third party is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless larger public interest justifies it.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, J
Ekta Bhatnagar – Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Jaipur – Respondent
CIC/CCITJ/A/2023/147039