Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    



Please Wait ..


Discussion > Constitutional Law > RTI > Father in Law’s Income Tax details can be given in RTI - CIC   Unanswered Threads Post New Topic

Pages : 1


There are 6 Replies to this message


Tajobsindia


Senior Partner
[ Scorecard : 19354]
Posted On 29 March 2011 at 12:23 Report Abuse

Father in Law’s Income Tax details can be given in RTI - CIC Judgement


Central Information Commission

Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 Website: www.cic.gov.in  


Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS

Appellant /Complainant : Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur


Public Authority : The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur (Sh.Amrit Meena, CPIO through Videoconferencing)

Date of Hearing : 03 Jan, 2011
Date of Decision : 24 March, 2011


FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Vide his RTI Application dated 15.09.2009, the Applicant sought information pertaining to income tax returns of his fatherinlaw for the period 2000 to date along with the information pertaining to process for initiating tax evasion petition.


2.
The CPIO vide his order dated 06.10.2009 denied disclosure of information citing the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 (hereinafter “the Act”). Information was provided pertaining to the process of submitting tax evasion petition.


3.
The Applicant preferred appeal dated 13.10.2009 before the FAA who adjudicated upon it vide his order of 06.11.2009 by upholding the order of the CPIO and dismissing the appeal.


4.
The Applicant has come before this Commission in second appeal. The Appellant made an impassioned plea for disclosure of information sought by him on the grounds that he was a young man who is involved in defending himself in a criminal case against the State of Rajasthan pertaining to dowry related issues. He emphasized that the litigation was not a private matter against his wife / fatherinlaw and therefore, the denial of information could not be justified on the grounds that there was no public interest in the matter and that the issue was purely a personal one. The Appellant stated that in a welfare state, such as ours, the life and security of every individual was a matter which involved the state. Denial of information to him would result in a prolonged litigation of 10 years and more resulting in his losing the best years of his life and career.


5.
Respondent stated that he had ascertained that Shri Munna Lal Saini does not file any income tax returns in this income tax office Ward 3(1). Appellant stated that with the issue of PAN card which is a unique number, it will not be difficult to ascertain in which ward Shri Saini was filing his returns.


DECISION NOTICE:


6.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Appellant with great thrust and also by the Respondents.


7.
The conviction and thrust with which the Appellant had pursued his case and made his submission explaining the reasons for which he needs the information are plausible. But, however unfortunate as it may seem, the noise of motivation behind seeking the information falls upon deaf ears as far as the Act is concerned. Section 6(2) of the Act clearly states that the Applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information. Thus, the Act does not aim to judge the motivation or the reason behind seeking certain information, as each applicant may have a different line of reasoning, each one being equally passionate and emotionally driven.


8. What, in fact, matters is whether certain information which has been sought can actually be furnished under the Act. The information has been classified as either public information or personal information under the Act. There is no question of doubt whatsoever that every public information need be furnished upon receiving a request to that effect. However, in case of personal information, the Act stands on a different footing, and the present appeal before us is the best example of that. The Applicant has to satisfy the legislative intent enshrined in Sections 8(1)(j) of the Act which mandates the requirement of “larger public interest” that can justify the disclosure of such personal information.


9. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act is as follows:

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

XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”


10. Now I shall deal with each of the respective contentions raised by the Appellant in the appeal before me.


11. The Appellant has contended that the information pertaining to the Income Tax returns filed by his father inlaw is an information within the ambit of Proviso to Section 8(1)(j), i.e. those IT returns cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature. Here, we look towards the enlargement of intent of this proviso by Hon’ble Sanjiv Khanna J. in his decision dated 30.11.2009 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.. 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 AND 3607 OF 2007, wherein he stated ” The proviso in the present cases is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act and does not itself create any new right. The purpose is only to clarify that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e. the question of balance between ‘ public interest in the form of right to privacy and ‘public interest in access to information is to be balanced.” It is now apposite to peruse through Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), which is as follows:

Section 138 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RESPECTING ASSESSEES.

(1)

(a) The Board or any other income-tax authority specified by it by a general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to -

(i) Any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law relating to the imposition of any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings in foreign exchange as defined in section 2(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (7 of 1947); or (ii) Such officer, authority or body performing functions under any other law as the Central Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest, specify by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, any such information received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act as may, in the opinion of the Board or other income-tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law.

(b) Where a person makes an application to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in the prescribed form for any information relating to any assessee received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act, the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or any other law for the time being in force, the Central Government may, having regard to the practices and usages customary or any other relevant factors, by order notified in the Official Gazette, direct that no information or document shall be furnished or produced by a public servant in respect of such matters relating to such class of assesses or except to such authorities as may be specified in the order.”


12.
The legislative mandate is absolutely clear on the front that the Income Tax Returns of an assessee are held by the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax only and such cannot be accessed by any other body or authority except when the Chief Commissioner himself is of the opinion that such returns be furnished to a third party in light of public interest. In R. K. Jain Vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120 it was held that factors to decide the public interest immunity would include (a) where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure; (b) where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect; (c) the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matter contained in the documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issue in relation to which the production is sought; (e) the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the likelihood of the injustice if the documents are not produced ” It was further stated “The courts would allow the objection if it finds that the documents relates to the affairs of the state and its disclosure would be injurious to the public interest, but on the other hand, if it reaches the conclusion that the document does not relate to the affairs of state or that the public interest does not compel its nondisclosure or that the public interest in the administration of justice in the particular case before it overrides all other aspects of public interest, it will overrule the objection and order disclosure of the document”. I am inclined to say that the information sought is not granted immunity from disclosure as class of information. Protection of disclosure has to be ensured by balancing the two competing aspects of public interest i.e. when disclosure would cause injury or unwarranted invasion of privacy and on the other hand if nondisclosure would throttle the administration of justice.


13. It brings me to the second contention of the Appellant which revolves around the concept of “larger public interest”. According to the Appellant, the “State” is pursuing a criminal case against him and that since “State” has decided to prosecute him because of legal fiction created under Section 405 of IPC, automatically a “larger public interest” is involved in the matter. Section 405 of the IPC states that “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’.” Dowry Cases invariably have the component of ‘Criminal Breach of Trust’ relating to misappropriation of property. In case, the State relies upon the fiction of misappropriation, then the other party should have a right to know the details of property reflected in IT Returns which is alleged to be misappropriated.


14. The mandate of the RTI Act to disclose personal information under Section 8(1)(j) is even stricter since it appends the expression “larger” to “public interest”. Mere public interest will not suffice in the disclosure of personal information such as the IT Returns of an assessee unless the Applicant can prove that a “larger” public interest demands such disclosure. The expression “larger” cannot be defined or carved into a straight jacketed formula and neither can it be easily disposed of. If the Applicant incessantly stresses on the argument that false dowry cases are a matter of “larger public interest” and that the information relating to IT returns of his father in law be furnished to him, then an equally challenging rebuttal could be that the Income Tax Act, which defines the procedure of disclosure of such IT Returns to him, is a public policy which has been enacted by the State keeping in mind the larger good of the society. It is not the case of the Respondents that objection to disclosure of the documents is taken on the ground that it belongs to a class of documents which are protected irrespective of their contents, because there is no absolute immunity for documents belonging to such class.


15. In my view, having assessed the factual situation and the legal reasoning at hand, the correct position of law is that the right forum for seeking the IT Returns of an assessee by a third person is either the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax or the Concerned Court, if the matter is subjudice. My view is furthered by the fact that the position after the repealing of Section 137 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 1964 is that the Court in a subjudice matter can direct the IT Authorities to furnish the information pertaining to IT Returns of an assessee for inspection by the Court. Thus, disclosure will be warranted if such line of action is followed. There is no absolute ban on disclosure of IT returns.


16. Since, the present appeal raises important questions of law; it is our duty to apply the law as it stands today. In SP Gupta vs. UOI ([1982] 2 SCR 365), a seven judges bench of the Apex Court held that “the Court would allow the objection to disclosure if its finds that the document relates to affairs of State and its disclosure would be injurious to public interest, but on the other hand, if it reaches the conclusion that the document does not relate to the affairs of State or the public interest does not compel its nondisclosure or that the public interest in the administration of justice in a particular case overrides all other aspects of public interest, it will overrule the objection and order the disclosure of the documents.” It was further held that “in balancing the competing interest, it is the duty of the Court to see that there is the public interest that harm shall not be done to the nation or public service by disclosure of the document and there is a public interest that the administration of justice shall not be frustrated by withholding the documents which must be produced if justice is to be done.”


17. In light of the above view taken by the Apex Court, I am inclined to make an observation in this case. I have already discussed the settled point of law regarding public interest but it is in the pursuance of the principle of that public interest only where we feel that the information pertaining to net taxable income of an assessee for the period of year 2000 till date be furnished by following the Section 10 of the RTI Act to his Income Tax Returns. We shall distinguish the present case from the decision of the CIC in the case of Milap Choraria vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes (Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00628) as decided on 15.06.2009 and in the case of P.R. Gokul vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Kottayaam (CIC/AT/A/2007/00405) decided on 15.06.2007. The Milap Choraria Case (supra) did not deal with the issue of information pertaining to net taxable income per se while the Gokul Case (supra) was not centered around the issue of larger public interest for the purpose of disclosure of net taxable income, unlike the present case. In S.P. Gupta case (Supra), Supreme Court stated “The language of the provision is not a static vehicle of ideas and as institutional development and democratic structures gain strength, a more liberal approach may only be in larger public interest.”


18. We direct the CPIO to furnish the information pertaining to the net taxable income of Shri Munna Lal Saini, the fatherinlaw of the Appellant, for the period of year 2000 till 15.09.2009 (i.e. the date of the Appellant’s RTI Application) to the Appellant within 10 days.


19. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

Information Commissioner (DS)

Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
Dy. Registrar

Copy to:

1. Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini
Plot No. 69, Adarsh Krishna
Nagar,l Kartarpura,
Jaipur302006


2. The Central Public Information Officer
The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax
Ward 3(1) , Jaipur


3.
The Appellate Authority
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range.3 Ward 3(1), Jaipur.



Total thanks : 2 times


Online certification courses IP, IT and Investment Law


ADVOCATE DEFENSE.


POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE - firmaction@gmail.com
[ Scorecard : 15899]
Posted On 29 March 2011 at 14:00 Report Abuse

very good , excellant information.



Puneet


Er
[ Scorecard : 49]
Posted On 30 March 2011 at 00:10 Report Abuse

thanks for providing such valuable judgement...



Member (Account Deleted)


retd personal
[ Scorecard : 3452]
Posted On 18 June 2011 at 00:32 Report Abuse

In my view income tax returns are not private affairs. Every citizen must have the right to ask for income tax returns of anybody he /she wishes to examine and report his observations on the income tax reports. This could be the first step towards buiding a just society.



arvind


advocate
[ Scorecard : 12658]
Posted On 05 October 2012 at 18:20 Report Abuse

Sir thanks for this valuable judgment.



YOGESHWAR.


ADVOCATE HIGH COURT-criminal /civil -youract@gmail.com
[ Scorecard : 825]
Posted On 05 October 2012 at 20:13 Report Abuse

Please do not get elated here is the recent JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT that IT RETURNS  can not be disclosed.

PLEASE FIND ORIGINAL COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT.



YOGESHWAR.


ADVOCATE HIGH COURT-criminal /civil -youract@gmail.com
[ Scorecard : 825]
Posted On 05 October 2012 at 20:16 Report Abuse

NOT ABLE TO ATTACH FILE SO  ORIGINAL WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE -Page 1

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Specia l Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012
(@ CC 14781/2012)
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande .. Petitioner
Versus
Cen. Information Commr. & Ors. .. Respondents
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether
the Central Information Commissioner (for short ‘the CIC’) acting
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act’)
Page 2
2
was right in denying information regarding the third respondent’s
personal matters pertaining to his service career and also denying
the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable
properties on the ground that the information sought for was
qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
3. The petitioner herein had submitted an application on
27.8.2008 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
(Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various
details relating to third respondent, who was employed as an
Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola, now working in
the State of Madhya Pradesh. As many as 15 queries were made
to which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur gave
the following reply on 15.9.2008:
”As to Point No.1: Copy of appointment order of Shri
A.B. Lute, is in 3 pages. You have
sought the details of salary in
respect of Shri A.B. Lute, which
Page 3
3
relates to personal information the
disclosures of which has no
relationship to any public activity
or interest, it would cause
unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of individual hence denied
as per the RTI provision under
Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
As to Point No.2: Copy of order of granting
Enforcement Officer Promotion to
Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 Number.
Details of salary to the post along
with statutory and other
deductions of Mr. Lute is denied to
provide as per RTI provisions
under Section 8(1)(j) for the
reasons mentioned above.
As to Point NO.3: All the transfer orders of Shri A.B.
Lute, are in 13 Numbers. Salary
details is rejected as per the
provision under Section 8(1)(j) for
the reason mentioned above.
As to Point No.4: The copies of memo, show cause
notice, censure issued to Mr. Lute,
are not being provided on the
ground that it would cause
unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of the individual and has no
relationship to any public activity
or interest. Please see RTI
provision under Section 8(1)(j).
Page 4
4
As to Point No.5: Copy of EPF (Staff & Conditions)
Rules 1962 is in 60 pages.
As to Point No.6: Copy of return of assets and
liabilities in respect of Mr. Lute
cannot be provided as per the
provision of RTI Act under Section
8(1)(j) as per the reason explained
above at point No.1.
As to Point No.7: Details of investment and other
related details are rejected as per
the provision of RTI Act under
Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason
explained above at point No.1.
As to Point No.8: Copy of report of item wise and
value wise details of gifts accepted
by Mr. Lute, is rejected as per the
provisions of RTI Act under Section
8(1)(j) as per the reason explained
above at point No.1.
As to Point No.9: Copy of details of movable,
immovable properties of Mr. Lute,
the request to provide the same is
rejected as per the RTI Provisions
under Section 8(1)(j).
As to Point No.10: Mr. Lute is not claiming for TA/DA
for attending the criminal case
pending at JMFC, Akola.
As to Point No.11: Copy of Notification is in 2
numbers.
Page 5
5
As to Point No.12: Copy of certified true copy of
charge sheet issued to Mr. Lute –
The matter pertains with head
Office, Mumbai. Your application is
being forwarded to Head Office,
Mumbai as per Section 6(3) of the
RTI Act, 2005.
As to Point No.13: Certified True copy of complete
enquiry proceedings initiated
against Mr. Lute – It would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of
individuals and has no relationship
to any public activity or interest.
Please see RTI provisions under
Section 8(1)(j).
As to Point No.14: It would cause unwarranted
invasion of privacy of individuals
and has no relationship to any
public activity or interest, hence
denied to provide.
As to Point No.15: Certified true copy of second show
cause notice – It would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of
individuals and has no relationship
to any public activity or interest,
hence denied to provide.”
Page 6
6
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the
CIC. The CIC passed the order on 18.6.2009, the operative
portion of the order reads as under:
“The question for consideration is whether the aforesaid
information sought by the Appellant can be treated as
‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of Section
8(1) of the RTI Act. It may be pertinent to mention
that this issue came up before the Full Bench of the
Commission in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/000628
(Milap Choraria v. Central Board of Direct Taxes)
and the Commission vide its decision dated 15.6.2009
held that “the Income Tax return have been rightly
held to be personal information exempted from
disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, and the
appellant herein has not been able to establish that a
larger public interest would be served by disclosure of
this information. This logic would hold good as far as
the ITRs of Shri Lute are concerned. I would like to
further observe that the information which has been
denied to the appellant essentially falls in two parts –
(i) relating to the personal matters pertaining to his
services career; and (ii) Shri Lute’s assets & liabilities,
movable and immovable properties and other financial
aspects. I have no hesitation in holding that this
information also qualifies to be the ‘personal
information’ as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of
the RTI Act and the appellant has not been able to
convince the Commission that disclosure thereof is in
larger public interest.”
Page 7
7
5. The CIC, after holding so directed the second respondent to
disclose the information at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (only posting
details), 5, 10, 11, 12,13 (only copies of the posting orders) to
the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of the
order. Further, it was held that the information sought for with
regard to the other queries did not qualify for disclosure.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ
petition No.4221 of 2009 which came up for hearing before a
learned Single Judge and the court dismissed the same vide order
dated 16.2.2010. The matter was taken up by way of Letters
Patent Appeal No.358 of 2011 before the Division Bench and the
same was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2011. Against the
said order this special leave petition has been filed.
7. Shri A.P. Wachasunder, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the documents sought for vide Sl.
Nos.1, 2 and 3 were pertaining to appointment and promotion
Page 8
8
and Sl. No.4 and 12 to 15 were related to disciplinary action and
documents at Sl. Nos.6 to 9 pertained to assets and liabilities and
gifts received by the third respondent and the disclosure of those
details, according to the learned counsel, would not cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy.
8. Learned counsel also submitted that the privacy appended
to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act widens the scope of documents
warranting disclosure and if those provisions are properly
interpreted, it could not be said that documents pertaining to
employment of a person holding the post of enforcement officer
could be treated as documents having no relationship to any
public activity or interest.
9. Learned counsel also pointed out that in view of Section 6(2)
of the RTI Act, the applicant making request for information is not
obliged to give any reason for the requisition and the CIC was not
justified in dismissing his appeal.
Page 9
9
10. This Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and
another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC
497 while dealing with the right of examinees to inspect
evaluated answer books in connection with the examination
conducted by the CBSE Board had an occasion to consider in
detail the aims and object of the RTI Act as well as the reasons
for the introduction of the exemption clause in the RTI Act,
hence, it is unnecessary, for the purpose of this case to further
examine the meaning and contents of Section 8 as a whole.
11. We are, however, in this case primarily concerned with the
scope and interpretation to clauses (e), (g) and (j) of Section
8(1) of the RTI Act which are extracted herein below:
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there
shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied
that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure
of such information;
Page 10
10
(g) information, the disclosure of which would
endanger the life or physical safety of any person or
identify the source of information or assistance given in
confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
(j) information which relates to personal information
the disclosure of which has no 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.”
12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show
cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third
respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and
immovable properties and also the details of his investments,
lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions.
Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have
accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends
and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly
sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third
respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is
Page 11
11
whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to
be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1)
of the RTI Act.
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that
the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos
issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of
censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information
as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The
performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily
a matter between the employee and the employer and normally
those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under
the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has
no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the
other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted
invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case,
if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the
Page 12
12
larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,
appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot
claim those details as a matter of right.
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns
are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure
under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a
larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of
such information.
15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide
public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such
information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the
individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not
succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for
Page 13
13
the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined
to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is
dismissed.
……………….……………………..J.
(K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
………………………………….…..J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
New Delhi

October 3, 2012PASTING COPY




Related Files



Previous Thread
Previous
Next Thread
Next

Related Threads


Post your reply for Father in Law’s Income Tax details can be given in RTI - CIC



Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to login


Not a member yet ?? Click here to signup

Message







    

  • This is a public forum. Avoid posting content which you do not wish to disclose in public.
  • Use thank button to convey your appreciation.
  • Maintain professionalism while posting and replying to topics.
  • Try to add value with your each post.





Subscribe to the latest topics :


Forum Home | Forum Portal | Control Center | Who is Where | Popular Threads | Today's Topic | Recent Posts | Today's Posts | Post New Topic | Thread With Files | Top Threads - Month | Unreplied Topics | Forum Stats


web analytics