Wife's RTI Bid for Husband's Salary Slips Shot Down: Rajasthan HC Shields Employee Privacy

In a ruling that prioritizes personal privacy over transparency demands, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a writ petition by Smt. Kanta Kumawat seeking her husband Omprakash's salary details from the Bhilwara police department. Justice Kuldeep Mathur upheld denials under the Right to Information Act, 2005, emphasizing that such information belongs strictly between employer and employee unless public interest demands otherwise.

From RTI Application to High Court Battle

The saga began on April 9, 2024, when Kanta Kumawat, a resident of Nimbahera in Bhilwara district, filed an RTI application with the Bhilwara police. She requested copies of pay slips and salary details for her husband, Omprakash Kumawat, covering January to March 2024. The Additional Superintendent of Police, acting as Public Information Officer, rejected the request on June 26, 2024, classifying it as personal information pertaining to a third party, exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Kumawat appealed to the Rajasthan State Information Commission, which on October 23, 2024, affirmed the denial. Undeterred, she approached the High Court via Civil Writ Petition No. 7374/2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the Commission's order and direct disclosure.

Petitioner's Push vs. State's Privacy Shield

Kumawat argued for access, framing the request as a legitimate right under the RTI Act's transparency mandate. However, the court noted no specific grounds were advanced to show how the information related to public activity or warranted overriding public interest.

The respondents—State of Rajasthan, Superintendent of Police Bhilwara (Appellate Officer), and Additional Superintendent (PIO)—consistently maintained the exemption. They stressed that salary details are confidential service matters, not subject to disclosure without consent or compelling justification, aligning with RTI safeguards against unwarranted privacy invasions.

Supreme Court Precedent Seals the Deal

Justice Mathur's analysis hinged on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. ((2013) 1 SCC 212). The apex court had ruled that employee performance and service-related information is "primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, governed by service rules," falling squarely under "personal information" exempt from RTI disclosure absent larger public interest.

The High Court found no distinction here: Omprakash was a third party to Kumawat's RTI, and no corruption, fund misuse, or public accountability issue was alleged to tip the balance toward transparency. As noted in reports from LiveLaw (2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 71), the bench observed the petitioner "failed to demonstrate any larger public interest," making Section 8(1)(j) directly applicable.

Key Observations from the Bench

The judgment pulls no punches on privacy protections:

"information relating to the performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, governed by service rules, and falls within the ambit of 'personal information'."

"Disclosure of such information, in the absence of any overriding public interest, has no relationship with any public activity or public interest."

"This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents in refusing to supply the information relating to a third party."

These excerpts underscore the RTI Act's built-in limits, balancing openness with individual rights.

Petition Dismissed: Privacy Prevails, Stay Lifted

On February 3, 2026, the court dismissed the writ petition outright, finding "no merit" and no grounds for interference under Article 226. The stay application was also disposed of, closing the door on Kumawat's claim.

This decision reinforces RTI boundaries in marital or familial disputes, signaling that personal financial details of public servants remain shielded. Future applicants must prove tangible public interest—such as graft allegations—to breach these walls, ensuring the Act doesn't become a tool for private inquisitions.