OVERVIEW
Central Information Commission in a remarkable order said that a husband is not permitted to seek information concerning his wife's bank details and income tax returns under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
NNeeraj Kumar Gupta, Information Commissioner noted that filing of Income Tax Returns with Income Tax Department by an individual is not a public activity.
WHAT ARE THE DETAILS OF CASE?
The husband (appellant) wanted details regarding the name and branch address of banks where his wife had an account, during the financial years 2012-2013 to 2017-18.
He also asserted that he was looking for information about his legally wedded life, and hence the Central Public Information Officer should invoke Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The respondent argued that the information appellant is asking for is of personal nature and therefore CPIO, O/o. the Income Tax claimed exemption u/section 8(1) (j) of the same Act.
Respondent also expressed that prima facie,, no public interest is involved in the matter and therefore, CPIO did not aim to reveal this.
WHAT DID THE COMMISSION DECIDE?
The commission agreed with the arguments of respondent and said that Section 11 will not be invoked.
TThe Court also noted that the husband is a third party for the benefit of the RTI Act in the case.
WHAT IS YOUR VIEW REGARDING THE DECISION? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
I think there is loss of context here. the ruling needs to be studied to ascertain whether the court intended to say that an RTI could not be used to ascertain generally any financial information by relatives unless there was public interest involved and even then husband can't raise rti and it is another competent authority or are they saying that wife can but husband cant with no involvement of public interest. it has to be well understood before bias can be ascribed