Income Tax Returns Are Exempt Personal Information Under RTI Unless Overriding Public Interest Is Established

The Petitioner (CPIO, Income Tax Department) challenged an order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).

Respondent No. 1, the estranged wife of an assessee, filed an RTI application seeking her husband's Income Tax Returns (ITR) and bank details for Assessment Years 2012–2017 to substantiate her maintenance claim in pending Domestic Violence Act proceedings.

The Petitioner originally rejected the request under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, asserting the information was held in a fiduciary capacity and was personal.

The First Appellate Authority upheld this, noting a lack of "larger public interest".

However, the CIC allowed the second appeal, directing disclosure by relying on a previous High Court stay order.

The Court primarily applied Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information unless a larger public interest justifies disclosure.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, which authoritatively held that ITR details are "personal information".

The Court also considered Section 138 of the Income-tax Act as a special provision governing disclosure of assessee info.

The non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was also considered.

Furthermore, it integrated procedural powers from Section 94 of the BNSS (formerly s. 91 CrPC) and Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (formerly s. 165 Evidence Act), which empower courts to summon documents.

The Court reasoned that while Section 22 of the RTI Act generally overrides inconsistent laws, Section 8(1)(j) provides a substantive protection for privacy that aligns with Section 138 of the Income-tax Act.

Although a spouse is a "third party" under Section 2(n), the Court found that a private maintenance dispute does not inherently constitute a "larger public interest" that warrants the "blunt instrument" of an RTI disclosure.

The Court noted that the CIC failed to conduct this mandatory balancing test.

However, the Court distinguished between RTI (public transparency) and judicial discovery (private litigation), stating that matrimonial courts possess ample statutory powers to compel the Income Tax Department to produce records in a "sealed cover" to ensure a fair adjudication of maintenance without violating the general confidentiality of tax returns.

It held that ITRs are private documents exempt under Section 8(1)(j) and that the RTI route is improper for matrimonial evidence collection.

However, it granted Respondent No. 1 liberty to apply to the competent matrimonial court to summon the records.

The Court directed the Income Tax Department to comply with any such judicial summons under Section 138 of the Income-tax Act.

Finally, the Court issued mandatory "Guidelines for Courts and the Income Tax Department" to streamline the production of financial records in a sealed cover during maintenance proceedings.