Rajasthan High Court news: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a wife’s plea seeking her husband’s salary details under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, reiterating that it falls within the ambit of personal information.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur, in an order passed on February 3, held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the state’s action in refusing to supply the information relating to a third party.
What was the case?
- The petitioner woman had sought copies of the payslips/details of the salary paid to her husband for the period from January to March 2024.
- The information sought under the RTI Act was denied on the ground that it was personal in nature and pertained to a third party.
- Therefore, it was held that the information sought was exempted from disclosure under the Act’s provisions.
- Feeling aggrieved, the woman approached the high court.
Court’s observations
- No illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents in refusing to supply the information relating to a third party, the high court observed.
- Conscious of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others, wherein it has been held that 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.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, no merit in the present petition.
Girish R Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others
- In this case, the petitioner had applied to the regional provident fund commissioner seeking information concerning a person employed as an enforcement officer in a sub-regional office.
- The information sought was related to the officer’s appointment, promotion, transfer orders, disciplinary proceedings, copies of memos and show-cause notices, as well as details of movable and immovable properties, investments, gifts received and income tax returns.
- The information was denied, and the Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the denial.
- The Supreme Court held that the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, and normally such aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”.
- It added that the disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity or public interest.
- The apex court noted that the disclosure of the information would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.
- The ruling argues that if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure, appropriate orders could be passed, but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
- Details disclosed by a person in their income tax returns are considered “personal information” and are exempt from disclosure, unless they involve a larger public interest.
- The top court held that the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
- Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act says that there shall be no obligation to provide any 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.
- Provided that 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.