Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1616
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
ASHIM KUMAR PAUL – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/604698
Personal financial information is protected under the RTI Act unless a clear public interest is demonstrated, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 7(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j) - Denial of information sought by husband regarding wife's financial details - CPIO's failure to respond within 30 days violated RTI provisions - Information deemed personal and exempt under Section 8(1)(j) - Previous CIC decision cited regarding disclosure of spouse's financial information in matrimonial disputes - No public interest established for disclosure in private litigation. (Paras 3, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Personal Information - Definition and protection under RTI Act - Personal records, including financial details, are protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy unless larger public interest is demonstrated. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant sought information under RTI regarding his wife's bank accounts and financial status to support ongoing matrimonial proceedings. The CPIO denied the request citing third-party confidentiality. The Appellant argued for transparency in light of pending maintenance and domestic violence cases.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the denial of information appropriate under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as the information sought was personal and did not meet the public interest threshold. The invocation of Section 8(1)(d) was rebuked.
Issues: The main issues included whether the information sought was personal and exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act and if the Appellant had established a public interest in the disclosure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that personal information, including financial records, is protected under the RTI Act unless a clear public interest is demonstrated, which was not established in this case.
Result: Appeal disposed of accordingly.
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:
“With due respect I want to convey that I am Ashim Kumar Paul, legally married husband of Smt. Jayeeta Dutta Paul. Our marriage certificate Number is ***********************-2022-11135, dated 20.02.2022.
I sought information sought under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the order passed by the Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Munirka, New Delhi (File No. CIC/CCITD/A/2023/622483, Dated 27.09.2023)
About whom information is sought for: Mrs. Jayeeta Dutta Paul, W/o, Sri Ashim Kumar Paul, D/O, Samar Kumar Dutta, residing at BE/29/7, Deshbandhu Nagar Road, P.O. Deshbandhu Nagar, P.S. Baguiati, Kolkata-700059, Dist. 24 PGS (N).
Her savings bank account number is: *********8108 (PNB- BAGUIATI BRANCH: PUNB0012620) For being the legally married husband I sought for the following information:
A. How many accounts are there in her name (either single operated or jointly basis)?
B. If there is more than one account except the above-mentioned account, then please mention that or those account number/s?
C. Is there any fixed deposite in her name (either single operated or jointly basis)? D. If yes, please mention that or those account number/s along with the principal amount?
E. Bank statement of all accounts for one year (till date).
F. Her PAN Name and Number.
G. The exact date in which she converted her name in the bank record from Jayeeta Dutta to Jayeeta Dutta Paul.”
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.12.2023.
3. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.02.2024 denied the information under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005. The FAA’s order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.02.2024.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Vishwaroop Roy, AGM & Rep. of CPIO along with Karuna Sagar Mishra, Senior Manager (Law) attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant relied on his written statement sent prior to the hearing wherein it was stated as under:
“2. The information was sought to ensure transparency and to support ongoing matrimonial proceedings related to maintenance and domestic violence cases filed before the Barasat District Court, North 24 Parganas (Case Numbers M-659/23 and C-1418/23).
3. The CPIO failed to respond within the mandatory 30 days, violating Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
4. I filed a First Appeal on 23/12/2023, which was disposed of by the FAA on 01/02/2024. The FAA rejected my request citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, claiming the information relates to third-party confidential information.
5. The grounds cited for rejection were improper, as the requested information does not fall under trade secrets or commercial confidence. The information sought pertains to the financial transparency of my legally wedded spouse, which is directly relevant to pending maintenance and matrimonial cases.
Key Developments and Precedents:
6. On 13/03/2024, Mr. Birendra Kr Naik, while addressing my subsequent representation to PNB, also upholded the same. The decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in File No. CIC/CCITD/A/2023/622483 dated 27.09.2023. This order directed the Income Tax Department to disclose the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of a wife to her legally wedded husband in the context of matrimonial disputes. This precedent applies directly to my case. The CIC's decision of 27/09/2023 specifically recognizes the legally wedded spouse's right to such financial information when it pertains to matters of maintenance, domestic violence, or matrimonial disputes, ensuring natural justice.
8. My wife, Smt. Jayeeta Dutta (Paul), has already submitted an affidavit of assets andliabilities before the 2nd Judic
