The Delhi High Court has ruled that the wife cannot use the RTI Act, 2005 to get her husband’s income tax information for use in maintenance proceedings because income tax returns are “personal information” exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Court clarified that matrimonial disputes cannot be converted into a ground for disclosure of private financial information through the RTI mechanism, particularly when remedies for financial disclosure already exist under matrimonial law.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission directing disclosure of his net taxable income from the financial year 2007-08 onwards.Background of the DisputeThe dispute arose out of ongoing matrimonial litigation between the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife. During the pendency of maintenance proceedings, the wife sought details of the husband’s income through an RTI application filed before the Income Tax Department.The Central Information Commission, by its order dated 22.07.2021, directed disclosure of the husband’s taxable income details.Aggrieved by the said direction, the husband approached the Delhi High Court challenging the legality of the CIC’s order.Submissions by the PetitionerThe petitioner argued that the information directed to be disclosed was purely personal information and therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.It was argued that income tax records have no connection with any public activity or public interest and disclosure of such information would amount to an invasion of privacy.The husband further argued that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of protected personal information merely because matrimonial litigation was pending between the parties. According to the petitioner, the RTI Act could not be used as a mechanism to compel disclosure of private financial information in a personal dispute.Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent-WifeThe respondent-wife opposed the petition and argued that she had a direct and legitimate interest in knowing the financial details of the petitioner for the purpose of effectively pursuing her maintenance claim.It was submitted that access to the husband’s income details was required/necessary for proper adjudication of maintenance proceedings and determination of the amount payable. The wife therefore argued that disclosure of the income details was justified in the facts of the case.Issue Before the CourtThe principal issue before the High Court was whether a spouse involved in maintenance proceedings could seek disclosure of the other spouse’s income tax details under the RTI Act by invoking the ground of “larger public interest”.The Court was thus called upon to interpret Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts the disclosure of personal information unless there is a greater public interest in disclosing the information.Court’s Analysis of Section 8(1)(j) RTI ActThe Court reviewed the statutory framework under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.It observed that the provision clearly establishes a general rule that personal information is ordinarily exempt from disclosure where it has no relationship to public activity or public interest, or where disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The only recognized exception is where larger public interest justifies disclosure.The Court observed:“A bare perusal of Section 8(1)(j) indicates that the general rule is that personal information is ordinarily exempted from disclosure if it is unrelated to public interest or if it would cause unnecessary violation of an individual’s privacy.”The High Court also observed that there was no argument whether the income tax returns and information relating to taxable income of an individual is “personal information”.In this regard, the Court drew reference from the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner which had held that the income tax returns are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act from disclosure.Another significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s interpretation of the phrase “larger public interest”.The Court said that the meaning of the expression has to be derived in accordance with the object and scheme of the RTI Act which was enacted to ensure and promote transparency in the working of public authorities and not to help in the disclosure of private information in personal disputes.The Court held that the expression has to be interpreted in consonance with the object and scheme of the RTI Act, which was enacted to promote transparency in the functioning of public authorities and not to facilitate disclosure of private information in personal disputes.The Court observed:“It could not have been the intention of the legislature to allow disclosure of personal information of individuals, having no bearing on the public at large.”The Court further observed“Therefore, the concept of ‘larger public interest’ cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act.”Accordingly, the High Court concluded that disclosure of the husband’s income details in a matrimonial dispute does not fall within the exception of “larger public interest”.RTI Cannot Become a Parallel ToolThe wife had argued that the husband’s financial information was essential for adjudication of her maintenance claim.The High Court, rejecting the submissions made by the respondent-wife, clarified that the RTI mechanism cannot be converted into a parallel tool for collecting evidence in private matrimonial disputes.The Court also said that the respondent-wife was not remediless, since the law governing maintenance proceedings already mandates financial disclosure by both spouses.The Court placed its reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, where directions were issued mandating parties in maintenance proceedings to file affidavits disclosing their income, assets, and liabilities.The Court held that parties in matrimonial disputes are at liberty to seek disclosure of financial information through remedies recognized under matrimonial law rather than through the RTI framework.CIC Order Set AsideTaking into account of the statutory provisions and precedents, the Court concluded that the directions given by the CIC to disclose the income details of the husband were unsustainable in law.The Court observed that if the Court allowed such disclosure under the RTI Act, it would effectively overlook the protection of privacy that is afforded under law, and the rules regulating financial disclosure in matrimonial proceedings.Accordingly, the impugned order of the Central Information Commission was set aside.W.P.(C) 8481/2021 & CM APPL. 26235/2021KAPIL AGARWAL vs CPIO INCOME TAX OFFICER MORADABAD & ANRDate of Decision: 28.04.2026For Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Sinha, Ms. Ankita Gupta Advocates.For Respondent: Mr. Manish Raghav, Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Mr. Rajan Thakur, Ms. Smriti Dubey, Advs. for R-2.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR. )
