Third-party personal documents submitted for CGHS dependency benefits are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The appellant’s late wife, Ambika, daughter of a retired Central Government official (Shri Shyam Singh Khinchee), was included as a dependent beneficiary under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) by her father in 2020

The appellant alleged that this inclusion was obtained through false declarations stating that Ambika was wholly dependent on her father and separated from her husband

On October 4, 2022, the appellant filed an RTI application seeking copies of his father-in-law’s CGHS application, supporting affidavits, file notings, and medical claim details

The CPIO and subsequent appellate authorities, including the Central Information Commission (CIC), denied the request under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, citing "third-party information"

The appellant challenged these orders via a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on February 19, 2026

The appellant thereafter filed this intra-Court letters patent appeal

1. Whether the information and documents regarding a third party's application for CGHS benefits constitute "personal information" exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act

2. Whether the fact that the third party’s application contained references to the appellant’s marital status transforms the requested documents into the appellant’s own personal information

Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which exempts the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure

Interpretation highlighting the distinction between personal information concerning the applicant versus information concerning a third party

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the information pertained to him simply because it mentioned his marital status

The Bench reasoned that the documents sought—specifically the application, affidavits, and medical claims filed by Shri Shyam Singh Khinchee—were "personal to" the father-in-law as they were submitted by him to avail of a government benefit

The Court held that merely because a third party makes averments regarding the appellant in a declaration, it does not strip those documents of their private character or entitle the appellant to circumvent the protections of Section 8(1)(j)

The Court noted that the appellant had already unsuccessfully challenged the validity of his wife’s CGHS inclusion in separate proceedings (W.P.(C) 16539/2025) and could not use the current RTI appeal to re-litigate those grievances

The Court found no illegality in the Single Judge’s order or the findings of the CIC

While the Court declined to grant the relief sought, it noted that the appellant remains free to challenge the dismissal of his separate writ petition regarding the "false and fabricated" documents before the appropriate forum. No costs were ordered