Full Judgment Text
$~16
* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8481/2021 & CM APPL. 26235/2021
Date of Decision: 28.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
KAPIL AGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vineet Sinha, Ms. Ankita Gupta
Advocates.
versus
CPIO INCOME TAX OFFICER MORADABAD & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Raghav, Mr. Prakash
Srivastava, Mr. Rajan Thakur, Ms.
Smriti Dubey, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
“ (i) An order to set aside Impugned Order dated 22.07.2021 passed by
the Hon'ble Central Information Commission 111 second appeal bearing
No. CIC/CCAKP/A/20 I 9/657945 titled as "Sakshi Goyal Vs CPIO".
(ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 not to share the income details of the
Petitioner with the Respondent No.2.
(iii) Pass any other order/ directions as deem fit and proper to the facts
and circumstance of the case in hand and in the interest of justice.”
2. The contesting parties in the instant petition are husband and wife.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:23:18
The instant petition has been filed by the husband, who is aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 22.07.2021, passed by the Central Information
Commission (hereinafter, “ CIC ”), whereby, directions have been issued for
the disclosure of details of his net taxable income for the FY 2007-08 and
onwards.
3. It appears that the impugned order was passed in the backdrop of an
ongoing matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2 seems to have filed a maintenance claim against the
petitioner, which has been remitted to the learned Principal Judge by the
Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 179/2024.
4. The petitioner submits that the information directed to be disclosed is
his personal information and as such, is exempted from disclosure under
Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, “ RTI
Act” ). He further submits that the impugned order is an unwarranted
invasion of his privacy.
5. Per contra , Respondent No. 2 submits that she has a direct and
legitimate interest in knowing the petitioner’s income details in order to get
the appropriate relief in the maintenance claim filed by her.
6. At the outset, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is extracted below:
" 8(1)(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 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:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or
a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person ."
7. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:23:18
to public interest or if it would cause unnecessary violation of an
individual’s privacy. The only exception to the said rule stipulated under the
provision is where the disclosure of such personal information is warranted
in larger public interest.
8. In the instant petition, there can be no doubt that the information
sought by Respondent No. 2 is “personal information” of the petitioner. The
Supreme Court, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information
1
Commissioner & Ors . , has held that income tax returns of an individual
would fall under personal information, and as such, would be exempted
from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
9. As far as the exception of “larger public interest” is concerned, it is
observed that the same has to be interpreted in consonance with the scheme
and object of the RTI Act. The Act was enacted to promote transparency in
the working of public authorities. 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.
10. Therefore, the Court finds that the information directed to be
disclosed by way of the impugned order, does not fall under the exception of
“larger public interest”.
11. The contention of Respondent No. 2 that the disclosure of the
petitioner’s income details under the RTI Act is necessary for the proper
adjudication of her maintenance claim, cannot be accepted. As per the
1
SLP(C) No. 27734/2012.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:23:18
2
judgement of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha &Anr. , both the
parties in a maintenance claim are required to file affidavits of their income,
assets, and liabilities, in order to enable proper adjudication of such claim.
The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
“(iv) The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner
in a civil union, live-in relationship, common law marriage, should be
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, as a mandatory requirement.
(v) On the basis of the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits
of Disclosure, the Court would be in a position to make an objective
assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards
maintenance at the interim stage.”
12. Therefore, it is found that Respondent No. 2 is not without remedy.
The parties shall be at liberty to take all remedies available in law for
requiring the other spouse to place on record the affidavit as mandated under
Rajnesh ( supra ).
13. In the above circumstances, the nature of the directions passed by the
CIC are found unsustainable in law. The impugned order, thus, stands set
aside.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition along with
pending application stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 28, 2026/SH/sv
2
(2020) 2 SCC 324.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:23:18