The High Court of Delhi has ruled that a spouse’s income tax details constitute “personal information” and are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Court set aside an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that directed the disclosure of a husband’s income details to his wife amid an ongoing matrimonial dispute.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner (husband) and Respondent No. 2 (wife). The wife had filed a maintenance claim against the petitioner, a matter which has been remitted to the Principal Judge by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 179/2024.
During this dispute, the wife sought the details of her husband’s net taxable income from the financial year 2007-08 onwards. On July 22, 2021, the CIC passed an impugned order directing the disclosure of these income details. Aggrieved by this, the husband filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside the CIC’s order and to direct the authorities not to share his income details with his wife.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner (Husband): The petitioner argued that the information directed to be disclosed is his personal information and is explicitly exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He contended that the impugned order constituted an “unwarranted invasion of his privacy.”
Respondent No. 2 (Wife): The wife argued that she possesses a “direct and legitimate interest” in knowing the petitioner’s income details to secure appropriate relief in her ongoing maintenance claim.
Court’s Analysis
The Court, presided over by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, analyzed the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court noted that the general rule under this provision 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 sole exception is when the disclosure is justified by a “larger public interest.”
The Court categorically stated, “In the instant petition, there can be no doubt that the information sought by Respondent No. 2 is ‘personal information’ of the petitioner.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (SLP(C) No. 27734/2012), the Court reiterated that an individual’s income tax returns fall under personal information and are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j).
Addressing the exception, the Court observed that “larger public interest” must be interpreted in consonance with the RTI Act’s objective to promote transparency in public authorities. The Court noted: “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. Therefore, the concept of ‘larger public interest’ cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act.” Consequently, the Court found that the requested information did not fall under the “larger public interest” exception.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the wife’s argument that the RTI disclosure was necessary to adjudicate her maintenance claim. Citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. ((2020) 2 SCC 324), the Court highlighted that parties in a maintenance claim are mandatorily “required to file a concise application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings, alongwith an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court.” The Court noted that based on these affidavits, the family court “would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that Respondent No. 2 is “not without remedy,” as both parties are at liberty to utilize available legal remedies to compel the other spouse to place the mandated affidavit on record as per the Rajnesh guidelines.
Finding the directions passed by the CIC to be “unsustainable in law,” the Court set aside the impugned order dated July 22, 2021, and disposed of the petition.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kapil Agarwal versus CPIO Income Tax Officer Moradabad & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 8481/2021 & CM APPL. 26235/2021
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Date: 28.04.2026
