Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shailesh Gandhi, an RTI activist and former Central Information Commissioner, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15 May 2013 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had dismissed his second appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005, thereby confirming the orders of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Income Tax Department and the First Appellate Authority, which had denied disclosure of the income tax returns and balance sheets of Respondent No.3, Shri Ajit A. Pawar, the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The petitioner had made an application under Section 6 of the RTI Act on 21 November 2012 seeking this information for the preceding three years, claiming that there was a larger public interest in disclosing the information to compare his affidavit given to the Election Commission with his income tax returns. Since the information pertained to a third party, the CPIO followed the procedure under Section 11 of the Act and sought the views of Respondent No.3, who opposed disclosure. The CPIO then denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, holding that the information had no relationship to any public activity or interest. The petitioner filed a first appeal under Section 19, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority on 5 February 2013. The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the CIC, which was also dismissed on 15 May 2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court. The court considered the legal issues: whether the income tax returns and balance sheets of a third party are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and whether the petitioner had established a larger public interest. The petitioner argued that as a public figure, Respondent No.3's income details should be disclosed to verify the correctness of his election affidavit. The respondents contended that the information is personal and exempt, and that the petitioner had not shown any larger public interest. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 8(1)(j), which exempts personal information unless it is in larger public interest. The court held that income tax returns are personal information and that the petitioner's vague assertion of comparing with election affidavits did not constitute larger public interest. The court also noted that the petitioner had not pointed out any discrepancy or specific reason to doubt the affidavit. The court further held that the CPIO had correctly followed the procedure under Section 11 and that the CIC's order was justified. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the denial of information.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Personal Information - Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Disclosure of income tax returns and balance sheets of a third party - The court held that such information is personal and exempt from disclosure unless the applicant establishes a larger public interest that outweighs the privacy of the third party. The mere desire to compare election affidavits with tax returns does not constitute larger public interest. (Paras 1-40) B) Right to Information - Third Party Information - Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Procedure for disclosure of third party information - The court held that when a third party objects to disclosure, the public authority must consider the objection and can only disclose if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the third party. The CPIO correctly followed the procedure and denied disclosure. (Paras 4-6) C) Right to Information - Larger Public Interest - Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - The court held that the phrase 'larger public interest' must be interpreted strictly and the applicant must provide specific reasons showing how disclosure serves public interest. Vague assertions or general curiosity are insufficient. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the income tax returns and balance sheets of a third party (Respondent No.3) can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, when the third party objects and the information is personal, and whether the petitioner has established a larger public interest justifying disclosure.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Central Information Commission dated 15 May 2013 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 8(1)(j)
- Section 11
- Section 6
- Section 19
- personal information
- third party
- larger public interest
- fiduciary relationship
- proportionality
- privacy
