Back
Upholds Denial of RTI Info on Estranged Wife's Govt Service, Citing Privacy
The has declined to order the disclosure of service-related information of a government school teacher sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by her estranged husband, holding that no material was placed on record to demonstrate a sufficient to override her .
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay dismissed filed by Vijendra Kumar, who had challenged the rejection of his RTI request concerning his wife’s employment as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Junior High School. between the couple were pending before the at the time.
Background of the Dispute
Vijendra Kumar had approached the Public Information Officer seeking details about his wife’s service record. The wife opposed the application, alleging that the information was being sought with . She specifically pointed out that her husband had previously caused multiple complaints to be filed against her before various authorities, resulting in what she described as "."
Taking this objection into account, the Public Information Officer rejected the RTI application. The appellant then pursued the , but when his first appeal was not decided within the prescribed timeline, he approached the by way of a second appeal. The dismissed the appeal on .
A Single Judge of the High Court subsequently dismissed the writ petition challenging that order, noting the strained relationship between the parties and the provisions of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act. The Single Judge held that when information concerning a third party is sought and that party objects, the Public Information Officer is empowered to decide whether disclosure is warranted.
Arguments Before the Division Bench
Appearing for Vijendra Kumar, counsel argued that a Public Interest Litigation concerning alleged manipulation of documents in the appointment of Assistant Teachers was already pending before the court, and a was investigating the matter. It was contended that the wife had procured her appointment through manipulation, and therefore disclosure of the information was in the public interest.
The State, represented by Standing Counsel , supported the position taken by the authorities below. The wife maintained her objection, reiterating that the appellant had a history of filing against her with the intent to harass.
Court’s Legal Analysis
The Division Bench examined the provisions of , which exempts from disclosure personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, unless the justifies disclosure. The court also considered Section 11, which mandates a procedure for .
The Bench observed that the Public Interest Litigation referred to by the appellant was still pending and that
"there is no evidence annexed with the writ petition to establish, even
, that appointment was obtained by respondent no.4 by any foul means."
Key Observations
In a crucial passage, the court stated:
"As at present, we find no such material on record to indicate involvement of any public interest, which may outweigh the right of privacy of the private party, therefore, we find no good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the Act as well as the order of the learned Single Judge."
The Bench further noted that the matrimonial dispute was ongoing and that the wife had strongly objected to the disclosure, alleging that the appellant had previously subjected her to harassment through complaints filed before different authorities.
Decision and Implications
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the and the Single Judge. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The ruling reinforces the principle that the under can only be overridden by a , and that or matrimonial disputes do not constitute such interest. The judgment serves as a reminder that RTI requests motivated by personal grievances rather than genuine public concern may not succeed, particularly when the information pertains to a third party who objects to its disclosure.
