Overview of Right to Information Act, 2005

The Right to Information Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2004. It was passed by both houses of Parliament with major amendments in May 2005. The assent of the President was received on 15.06.2005 and the Act was notified in the Gazette on June 21 and it came into force on 12.10.2005.

The Right to Information Act defines the right to information as the right to access information held by a public authority. This includes the right to inspect, take notes, and obtain certified copies of documents and records. Every citizen of India has a right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This right does not only cover the communication of information but also the receipt of information since without adequate information, a person cannot form an informed opinion. Thus, the right to know and seek information is an integral part of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(1)(a). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain & Anr AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 2299, 1976 2 SCR 347 – Date of Judgement : 07.11.1975 has also held that the right of the citizens to know, and to receive information regarding matters of public concern is a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a).

Scope of Right to Information Act, 2005

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the Act”) extends to the whole of India. It covers all the constitutional authorities, including executive, legislature and judiciary; any institution or body established or constituted by an act of Parliament or a state legislature. It is also defined in the Act that bodies or authorities established or constituted by order or notification of appropriate government including bodies “owned, controlled or substantially financed” by government, or non-Government organizations “substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds”.

Private bodies

Private bodies are not directly covered. But all the information relating to private bodies which can be accessed by a public authority can be accessed by you. In a decision of Sarbjit Roy v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Central Information Commission also reaffirmed that privatised public utility companies fall within the purview of RTI. As of 2014, private institutions and NGOs receiving over 95% of their infrastructure funds from the government come under the Act.

Are non-Government organizations covered?

Yes. You can access information from non-Government organizations substantially financed - directly or indirectly by Government funds.

Right to Information Act, 2005

Six Chapters and 31 Sections

§  Chapter I    :  Preliminary

§  Chapter II   :  RTI & Obligations of Public Authorities

§  Chapter III  :  Central Information Commission

§  Chapter IV  :  State Information Commission

§  Chapter V    :  Powers & Functions of the Information Commissions, Appeal and Penalties

§  Chapter VI   :  Miscellaneous

Object of the Right to Information Act

§  The basic object of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in real sense.

§  It goes without saying that an informed citizen is better equipped to keep necessary vigil on the instruments of governance and make the government more accountable to the governed.

§  The Act is a big step towards making the citizens informed about the activities of the Government.

Governance and process

The Right to information in India is governed by two major bodies:

(a)   Central Information Commission (CIC)

Chief Information commissioner who heads all the central departments and ministries- with their own public Information officers (PIO)s. CICs are directly under the President of India.

(b)  State Information Commissions

State Public Information Officers or SPOs head over all the state department and ministries. The SPIO office is directly under the corresponding State Governor.

State Information Commissions are independent bodies and Central Information Commission has no jurisdiction over the State Information Commission

“State Information Commission” means the State Information Commission constituted under sub-section (1) of section 15; [Section 2(k) Right to Information Act]

“State Chief Information Commissioner” and “State Information Commissioner” mean the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioner appointed under sub-section (3) of section 15; [Section 2(l) of Right to Information Act, 2005]

   

“State Public Information Officer” means the State Public Information Officer designated under sub-section (1) and includes a State Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such under sub-section (2) of section 5; [Section 2(m) of Right to Information Act, 2005]                  

Important Definitions [Section 2 of Right to Information Act, 2005]

What is Information [Section 2(f) of Right to Information Act, 2005]

“Information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;

Right to Information Act defines information as any material in any form including:

§  Records

§  Documents

§  Memos

§  E-mails

§  Opinions

§  Advices

§  Press releases

§  Circulars

§  Orders

§  Logbooks

§  Contracts

§  Reports

§  Papers

§  Samples

§  Models

§  Data material held in any electronic form and

§  Information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

Record [Section 2(i) of Right to Information Act, 2005]

The Act specifies “Records” to include:

(a)      any document, manuscript and file;

(b)      any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;

(c)      any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and

(d)      any other material produced by a computer or any other device.

Right to Information [Section 2(j) of Right To Information Act, 2005]

 “Right To Information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to -

(i)      inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii)     taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii)    taking certified samples of material;

(iv)    obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;

“Public Authority” means [Section 2(h) of Right To Information Act, 2005]

“Public Authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted -

(a)    by or under the Constitution;

(b)   by any other law made by Parliament;

(c)    by any other law made by State Legislature;

(d)   by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any -

(i)   body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii)  non-Government organisation substantially financed,

        directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;

Information will be proactively disclosed by public authorities

Every public authority must publish in the local language the following information:

§  the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;

§  the powers and duties of its officers and employees;

§  the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;

§  the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;

§  the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;

§  a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;

§  the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;

§  a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for

§  public;

§  a directory of its officers and employees;

§  the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;

§  the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;

§  the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;

§  particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it;

§  details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;

§  the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;

§  the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;

§  such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update these publications every year;

Authority to whom application for obtaining information is to be made [Section 6(1) of RTI Act, 2005]

Application for seeking information should be made in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language to an officer of the public authority who is designated as Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). All the public authorities have designated their Central Public Information Officers and have posted their particulars on their respective web-sites. This information is also available on the ‘RTI PORTAL’  (www.rti.gov.in). Application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to -

(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;

(b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be,

    specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:

FORM ‘A’

Form of application for seeking information

(See rule 3)

To

          The Central Public Information Officer

          ………………………………………..

          ………………………………………..

 

1.   Name of the Applicant                         :____________________

2.   Address                                                :____________________

3.   Information sought :-                            ____________________

      (Brief Title of the information sought    :___________________

      not to exceed one line)                        ____________________

 

  (Details should include separate paras for each information sought)

4.  I state that information sought does not fall within the restrictions contained in the Section 8 & 9 of the Act and to best of my knowledge it pertains to your office.

5.  This is to certify that I,_____________son/Daughter/Wife of _____________, am a citizen of India.

6.  A fee @ of Rs ___________ has been deposited in cash / vide postal order No. / Demand draft no.________________ drawn on Bank ____ __________________ dated ____________.

     (No fees would be charged from the persons below poverty line)

  

Place :

Date

Signature of Applicant

Tel No. (Office)________________________

              (Res)   ________________________

Postal Address  ________________________

 Time Period for Supply of Information [Section 7 of Right to Information Act, 2005]

§  Within 30 days from the date of receipt of application

§  5 days shall be added to the above response time, in case the application for information is given to Assistant Public Information Officer.

§  48 hours for information concerning the life and liberty of a person

§  40 days where the interests of a third party

§  45 days for information pertaining to allegations of violation of human rights violations from security and intelligence organizations from the Second Schedule of the Act subject to approval of the Information Commission concerned.

Failure to provide information within the specified period is deemed as refusal.

Fee for Seeking Information from Central Government Public Authorities [Reference : DOPT’s Notification no. 34012/8(s)/2005-Estt.(B) dated 16.09.2005]

The Government of India has prescribed the following fees in respect of information requested from Government of India departments.

 

To submit your request	Rs. 10-00
To receive information :
For each page created / copied (in A-4 or A-3 size paper)	Rs. 2-00
If the paper is in larger size	Actual charge / cost price
Diskette / floppy	Rs. 50-00
Samples / Models	Actual charge / cost price
Printed matter	Price fixed / Rs. 2 for page of photocopy
For Inspection of records :
First hour	Free
Each subsequent hour	Rs. 5-00

Fees may be paid in cash / demand draft / banker’s cheque / Indian postal order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. Fees may vary from one state to another. Please check the fees prescribed by your State Government.

Fee for the Below Poverty Line (BPL) applicant for Seeking Information [Section 7(5) of Right to Information Act, 2005]

If the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to pay any fee. However, he should submit a proof in support of his claim to belong to the below poverty line.

Exemption from disclosure of information by public authorities [Section 8 of Right to Information Act, 2005]

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

(a)  information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

(c)  information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;

(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

(i)  cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:

PROVIDED further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) 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 unless the Public Information Officer is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

PROVIDED that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

Appeal - If request is rejected or if Applicant does not get the information requested [Section 19 of Right to Information Act, 2005]

Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within 30 days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:

First Appeal to a senior officer in the public authority [Section 19(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005]

Applicant can prefer an appeal to a senior officer in the public authority (Designated Appellate Officer) –

§  If Applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Public Information Officer (within 30 days from the receipt of the decision)

§  If he does not receive any response from the Public Information Officer (within 30 days from the expiry of the time limit)

PROVIDED that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

Second Appeal to the Information Commission [Section 19(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005]

§  Independent Central and State Information Commissions have been constituted to enforce the Act.

§  Second Appeal to the Information Commission can be made against the decision of the first appellate officer within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the decision or expected date of the decision where no such decision was given.

§  If you delay in filing an appeal sufficient cause should be shown. If you have suffered any loss or harm, you can claim compensation from the public authority.

§  The Information Commission first hears the Public Information Officer (PIO), so that unless it agrees with the PIO, you need not be bothered with personal presence before the Commission . However, if the Commission sees merit in the PIO’s arguments, you will be given an opportunity to present your case in person / through any other person duly authorized by you. You may opt not to be present.

Penalties - Public Information Officer can be penalized [Section 20 of Right to Information Act, 2005]

The Information Commission can impose penalty of Rs. 250/- per day, up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/- on erring Public Information Officers (PIOs) for :

§  Without any reasonable cause:

§  refusing an application

§  delaying information release without reasonable cause

§  malafidely denying information

§  knowingly giving incomplete, incorrect, misleading information

§  destroying information that has been requested

§  obstructing furnishing of information in any manner

The Commission also has powers to recommend disciplinary action against Public Information Officers (PIOs). It can also direct compensation to be paid to the appellant by the public authority.

Bar of jurisdiction of courts [Section 23 of Right to Information Act, 2005]

No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Right to Information Act, 2005 not to apply to certain organisations (i.e. Exempted Organisations) [Section 24 of Right to Information Act, 2005]

As per section 24 of the Act, intelligence and security organisations, both Central and State, are exempted from the RTI Act except in cases of corruption or human rights violation. Such central organisations are listed in schedule 2 of the Act.

(1)        Intelligence Bureau

(2)        Research and Analysis Wing including its technical wing, Aviation Research Centre

(3)        Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

(4)        Central Economic Intelligence Bureau

(5)        Directorate of Enforcement

(6)        Narcotics Control Bureau

(7)        Special Frontier Force

(8)        Border Security Force

(9)        Central Reserve Police Force

(10)     Indo-Tibetan Border Police

(11)     Central Industrial Security Force

(12)     National Security Guard

(13)     Assam Rifles

(14)     Sashastra Seema Bal

(15)     Directorate General of Income-tax (Investigation)

(16)     National Technical Research Organisation

(17)     Financial Intelligence Unit, India

(18)     Special Protection Group

(19)     Defence Research and Development Organisation

(20)     Border Roads Organisation

(21)     National Security Council Secretariat (secretariat of the National Security Council, in the Cabinet Secretariat)

A Specimen Letter of Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Date:…….

To,

The Appellate Officer

(Name of the Public Authority)

(Address of the Public Authority)

An appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Reference : [PIO/Appellate Officers’ Decision Reference No. & Date, received on  ……. (Date) / Date of Deemed Refusal]

Dear Sir / Madam:

[Please describe the details about Appeal and Grounds why Appeal is preferred:

§  Date & Description of the Application:

§  Name and Address of the PIO:

§  Details of Decision of the PIO:

§  Grounds of Appeal:

§  Decision Requested:

Sincerely,

(Appellant’s signature)

Appellant’s Name:

Appellant’s Address:

Appellant’s Phone Number / e-Mail Address (optional):

Place:

Date:

Central Information Commission (CIC) does not have jurisdiction to direct furinshing of information provided for in section 138 of Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 138(2) of Income Tax Act would prevail over section 22 of Right To Information Act

The Central Information Commission (CIC) passed an order directing the petitioner herein i.e. the Commissioner (Exemption) to provide copies of all the documents submitted in exemption application and copies of file notings granting the approval relating to PM CARES Fund under Right to Information (RTI) application filed by the respondent.

The CPIO/Dy. Commissioner (Exemption), had approached this Court challenging said order. He claimed that such information was denied to the respondent by the Commissioner (Exemption) and the Appellate Authority on the ground that the information sought was exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Held : Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act which specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, would prevail over section 22 of the RTI Act. The information, as sought for by the respondent herein, has been sought from the CPIO of Income-tax Department and not from the PM CARES Fund. The petitioner herein does not treat PM CARES Fund as an authority. Since the information sought for by the respondent relates to a third party, PM CARES Fund ought to have been heard. Section 11 of the RTI Act prescribes that any information related to a third party can only be divulged after giving notice to the said third party. In view of the above, the CIC ought to have followed the procedure specified under section 11 of the RTI Act before ordering for grant of information as sought for by the respondent herein.

The Income-tax Act is a special Act governing all the provisions and laws relating to income tax and super-tax in the country. On the other hand, RTI Act is a general Act which deals with the providing of information to citizens to enable them to realize their Right to Information. Information is defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

In the instant case, the question which arose was whether section 138(2) of the Income Tax Act which also contains a non obstante clause would override section 22 of the RTI Act or not. In view of the fact that section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act mandates that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, it can be said that section 138(2) of the Income Tax Act would prevail over section 22 of the RTI Act. Thus, this Court is of the view that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information, provided for in section 138 of the Income Tax Act. In any case, even if they had the jurisdiction, the failure to give PM CARES, notice of hearing, would in itself have vitiated the impugned order. [In favour of revenue] – [CPIO/DCIT, HQ. Exemption v. Girish Mittal (2024) 464 ITR 672 : 158 taxmann.com 549 : [TS-40-HC-2024(DEL)] (Del.)]

DR’s ‘conflict of interest’ objection against ITAT’s Counsel for RTI case, mischievous

Chennai ITAT dismisses the preliminary objection of ‘conflict of interest’ raised by Senior DR & CIT-DR against Assessee’s counsel for representing ITAT before Central Information Commission (CIC), in DRs’ RTI appeal against non- furnishing of virtual proceedings’ footage; Observes that the appointment of the counsel was purely in the nature of administrative powers conferred to the ITAT by virtue of Section 255 of the Income Tax Act; Observes that CIT-DR is not empowered to file additional grounds of appeal or miscellaneous application including application raising preliminary objection without the consent of the Assessing Officer, however, no such consent was taken from the Assessing Officer in the present case; Remarks, “…it is imperative and it is compelling that functioning of the bench should not be put to mockery by means of such frivolous, mischievous, illegal and baseless applications which has successfully stalled a judicial proceeding without any substance”; Observes that CIT-DR has obstructed ITAT’s proceedings, thus, advises the Department to impart proper training to him before posting him before a judicial forum; Hints at exemplary cost but abstains from imposing it and directs the Registrar to supply a copy of this order to the Chairman, CBDT and also to PCIT, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for necessary information; On the issue of taxability of corporate guarantee of Rs. 5.22 Cr received from subsidiary, ITAT relies on Mumbai ITAT ruling in Capgemini SA v. DCIT (International Taxation) in ITA No.6323/Mum/2016, dated 09.01.2017 wherein it was held that guarantee commission received by a French company from its Indian subsidiaries in respect of corporate guarantee is not taxable under India-France DTAA; Following Mumbai ITAT ruling, ITAT observes that Article 23 of India-Korea DTAA which specifically provides the taxability of ‘other income’ only in the contracting state which was Korea in the present case and not India, hence taxability in India was not at all desirable; Thus, allows Assessee’s appeal. – [In favour of assesse] – [Daechang Seat Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (International Taxation) [TS-369-ITAT-2023(CHNY)] – Date of Judgwement : 05.07.2023 (ITAT Chennai)]

Absent ‘corruption’ allegations, DG-Investigations responses excluded from RTI; Assessment not investigation under section 8

Satya Narain Shukla (the respondent), has alleged that the net wealth of certain MLAs and MPs have increased five-fold times since last election. In connection therewith, he has sought certain information from the Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) of CBDT by way of application dated 16.11.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is stated by CBDT that the Election Commission of India forwards the affidavits submitted by MPs and MLAs disclosing their assets for verification to CBDT. Such affidavits are forwarded by CBDT to the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) for verification and the outcome of such verification is shared directly by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) with the Election Commission of India.

In view of above, the CPIO rejected Mr. Shukla's application under RTI on the following ground:-
Since, the matter is under investigation, hence under the provisions of Section 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005 (Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders) information cannot be provided at this stage.” Aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the respondent preferred second appeal before the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’). The said appeal was allowed and the CPIO was directed to supply the information sought for by the respondent. Aggrieved by CIC’s order, CBDT filed a writ petition before Delhi High Court.

Delhi High Court sets-aside Central Information Commission's (‘CIC’) order directing CBDT to supply the information pertaining to the net wealth of certain MLAs and MPs under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI’), allows CBDT's writ; The respondent (an individual) had alleged that the net wealth of certain MLAs and MPs had increased five-fold and CBDT had denied the information on the ground that the affidavits submitted by MPs and MLAs disclosing their assets were forwarded to DG (Investigation) for verification, and pending such ‘investigation’, the information (including DG’s responses) was exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act; At the outset, rejecting CBDT’s stand on Sec. 8(1)(h) exemption, High Court holds that verification from records cannot be termed as an ‘investigation’, further regular assessment proceedings cannot be considered as part of ‘process of investigation’ and also notes that there was no material to indicate that disclosure of the information as sought would impede any such investigation; However, High Court rules that DGIT (Investigations) is listed as excluded offices from RTI applicability (under the Second Schedule as contemplated u/s. 24 of the RTI Act) and CBDT was right in denying information; High Court also rejects non-applicability of exclusion u/s 24 absent specific ‘allegations of corruption’ but clarifies that 'in the event any citizen was to make an allegation of corruption, the information as sought by the respondent would not be excluded from the scope of the Act’. – [Central Board of Direct Taxes v. Satya Narain Shukla [TS-98-HC-2018(DEL)] – Date of Judgement : 19.02.2018 (Del.)]

Petitioner filed application under RTI Act demanding copies of Income-tax returns of five private parties, information demanded was personal information and was clearly exempted information under section 8(1)(j) and in disclosing same, there was no element of public interest to be sub-served

Petitioner filed an application under RTI Act before Public Information Officer of office of Commissioner of Income-tax seeking certain information which included copies of Income-tax returns of five private parties. He demanded information on plea that above parties had acquired status of agriculturists for themselves on basis of a Will of one ‘L’ which was not genuine and disclosure of information demanded would help to ascertain whether those parties had shown any agriculture income in their Income-tax returns and thereby avoided paying income-tax. Information Authorities denied information. Information demanded by petitioner was personal information and was clearly exempted information under section 8(1)(j). In disclosing said information, there was no element of public interest to be sub-served. [In favour of revenue] - [Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia) v. ACIT (2015) 235 Taxman 467 : 63 taxmann.com 245 (Guj.)]

Income tax information outside RTI; no larger public interest involved

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta who was an informer to the Income Tax Department filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with the PIO inter alia seeking information and all the records available with the Income tax department in respect of nine assessees for various Assessment years ranging from Assessment year 1998-2005-06.  Since the information sought was a third party information DCIT issued separate notices to the assessees under section 11(2) to which assessees submitted their objections and objected to furnishing information and inspection. PIO after considering the objections filed by assessee, rejected the RTI application on the ground that the respondent failed to substantiate the public interest involved in disclosing the information to third parties. However an appeal was preferred before ACIT which was rejected .Aggrieved respondent preferred an appeal before CIC, which was allowed and it was directed to PIO to provide inspection of records and also other information sought by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta. Aggrieved, assessees preferred writ petition before Delhi High Court.

High Court allows assessees’ writ, no element of larger public interest involved in disclosure of information submitted to Income tax authorities by assessees’; High Court  holds the Income Tax information ‘exempt from disclosure’ under Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’); An informer to Income Tax Authorities filed RTI for disclosure of information contained in Income Tax returns of few assessees’ so as to aid in increasing public revenue, curb tax avoidance and corruption; High Court holds that income tax proceedings are not public proceedings where all and sundry are allowed to participate and voice their opinions, and that income tax has to be assessed by Income Tax Authorities as per provisions of Income Tax Act; Further holds disclosure of information submitted to Income tax would have effect of interfering in the assessment proceedings and thus, same cannot be considered to be in larger public interest; Relies on Supreme Court ruling in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61 and  Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission (2013) 1 SCC 212 (SC) – [Naresh Trehan And Others vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta [TS-867-HC-2014(DEL)] – Date of Judgement : 24.11.2014 (Del.)]

Details disclosed by a person in his income-tax returns are ‘personal information’ which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1), unless larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information

The petitioner submitted an application before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various details relating to third respondent, who was employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office. The Commissioner taking into account provisions of section 8(1)(j), refused to provide information relating to income-tax return, details of investments and gifts accepted by the third respondent on ground that said information was personal in nature. The CIC confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner. On special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court :

Held : The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show-cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income-tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be ‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

The CIC and the authorities below rightly held that the details called for by the petitioner, i.e., copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1). The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, 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 of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

The details disclosed by a person in his income-tax returns are ‘personal information’ which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) unless 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. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information and, thus, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under section 8(1)(j ).

In view of above, the special leave petition is dismissed. [In favour of revenue] – [Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013) 351 ITR 472 : (2012) 211 Taxman 46 : 25 taxmann.com 525 (SC)]