38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Husband not Entitled to Seek Information Regarding Bank Details & Income Tax Returns of His Wife under RTI Act, 2005: CIC [READ ORDER]

By Gautami Chakravarty      28 January, 2021 12:15 PM      0 Comments
Husband not Entitled to Seek Information Regarding Bank Details & Income Tax Returns of His Wife under RTI Act, 2005: CIC [READ ORDER]

The Central Information Commission in a recent matter at hand has held that a husband is not entitled to seek information regarding bank details & income tax returns of his wife under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Filing of the Income Tax Returns by an individual with the Income Tax Department is not a public activity, Neeraj Kumar Gupta the Information Commissioner has opined.

"It is in the nature of an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes, this information cannot be disclosed to the applicant in the absence of any larger public interest", the Commission said.

Matter Before the Court

The husband who is the appellant was seeking information regarding the name and branch address of all those banks where his spouse was having an account in the financial years from 2012-2013 to 2017-2018. 

The appellant contended before the commission that the CPIO ( Central Public Information Officer) should have invoked Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.

Further, he submitted that the information regarding her bank details & income tax returns should be disclosed. But the respondent (CPIO, O/o. the Income Tax) submitted that the appellant was seeking clarification with regard to the bank details & income tax returns of his wife, which is personal in nature, hence CPIO, O/o. the Income Tax claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was also submitted that Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 can only be invoked if the CPIO intends to disclose the personal information and therefore, once the CPIO is satisfied that the information is to be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, Section 11 is not required to be invoked.


Lastly, the respondent stated that prima facie, no larger public interest is involved in the matter and hence, the CPIO did not intend to disclose the information.

Decision of the Commission-

The commission agreed with the Respondent in not invoking Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005 and observed that- 

"The CPIO is expected to follow the procedure of Section 11 when he 'intends to disclose any information or record'. In the present case, the CPIO did not find any merit in disclosure and accordingly, Section 11 was not invoked."


In the above said case, the Apex Court had ruled the details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are personal information which stand exempted from disclosure under clause of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, unless it 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. It was retierated that  the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8 cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'. Lastly, the Commission, after considering the factual matrix of the case was of the opinion that in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter, the appellant is not entitled to seek information regarding bank details & income tax returns of his wife which is exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

ai-judges-the-future-of-algorithmic-decision-making-in-courts
Trending Vantage Points
“AI Judges” The Future of Algorithmic Decision-Making in Courts

Can algorithms deliver justice? This article explores AI judges, constitutional challenges, ethical risks, global models, and India’s cautious path forward.

12 January, 2026 07:07 PM

TOP STORIES

borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM
leela-palace-udaipur-ordered-to-pay-10-lakh-after-housekeeping-staff-enters-occupied-room-without-consent
Trending Business
Leela Palace Udaipur Ordered to Pay ₹10 Lakh After Housekeeping Staff Enters Occupied Room Without Consent [Read Order]

Chennai Consumer Commission orders Leela Palace Udaipur to pay ₹10 lakh and refund room tariff for breach of guest privacy by housekeeping staff.

07 January, 2026 09:43 PM
sc-strikes-down-bihars-midway-change-in-recruitment-rules-for-assistant-engineers
Trending Judiciary
SC Strikes Down Bihar’s Midway Change in Recruitment Rules for Assistant Engineers [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules recruitment criteria cannot be changed midway, strikes down Bihar’s retrospective amendment granting weightage to contractual engineers.

07 January, 2026 10:03 PM
only-light-and-not-any-fight-madras-hc-upholds-single-judges-order-allowing-lighting-of-lamps-on-deepathoon
Trending Judiciary
Only Light And Not Any Fight: Madras HC Upholds Single Judge’s Order Allowing Lighting Of Lamps On Deepathoon [Read Judgment]

Madras High Court upholds order allowing lighting of Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon, rejecting public order objections and dismissing 20 appeals.

07 January, 2026 10:57 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email