MARITAL STATUS DOES NOT OVERRIDE SECTION 8(1)(j) RTI EXEMPTION FOR THIRD-PARTY PERSONAL INFORMATION AND MEDICAL RECORDS.

The petitioner, Vikas Nagar, was married to Late Smt. Ambika, who resided with her father, Shri Shyam Singh Khinchee (a retired government official), due to matrimonial discord.

While the petitioner was providing maintenance and medical facilities under the ESIC scheme, the father applied for Smt. Ambika's inclusion as a dependent under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) in June 2020, allegedly submitting false declarations regarding her dependency.

Following Smt. Ambika’s death in 2021, the petitioner filed an RTI application seeking copies of the application, affidavits, and medical claims submitted by the father to the CGHS.

The CPIO denied the request under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, a decision subsequently upheld by the First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission (CIC).

The petitioner challenged these orders via the present writ petition.

Whether the information concerning medical benefits and dependency declarations of a deceased spouse, submitted by a third party (the father-in-law), is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Whether the petitioner’s status as a legal heir and allegations of "public exchequer loss" constitute a "larger public interest" sufficient to override the privacy exemption.

The court primarily applied Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which exempts from disclosure personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless a competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies such disclosure.

It also considered Section 19(3) regarding second appeals and Section 18(1) regarding the powers of the Commission.

The court determined that the documents sought—including applications, affidavits, and medical records submitted by Shri Shyam Singh Khinchee for his daughter—constitute "personal information" under the Act.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that his status as a husband/legal heir entitled him to this information, noting that the RTI Act maintains a rigid exception for privacy unless an overriding public interest is proven.

The court found that the petitioner’s general allegations regarding the misuse of CGHS funds remained unsubstantiated and did not meet the high threshold of "larger public interest" required by the statute.

It reasoned that while the petitioner may pursue other legal remedies regarding the alleged false declarations, the RTI mechanism cannot be used as a tool to bypass privacy protections for third-party personal data.

The court held that no demonstrable larger public interest was established to justify the invasion of privacy.

The orders passed by the CPIO, First Appellate Authority, and the CIC were upheld as having no infirmity.