Central Information Commission
Anubhav Khanna vs State Bank Of India on 31 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/627822
Anubhav Khanna ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
State Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Patiala
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13.04.2023 FA : 02.05.2023 SA : Nil
CPIO : 25.04.2023 FAO : 31.05.2023 Hearing : 21.11.2024
Date of Decision: 31.12.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"Appellant wish to inform your kind perusal that, my wife Prerna(a Biotechnology Phd student at Thapar University wife have filed a maintenance case against me, in which she has claimed that, she is not working anywhere, as per my information she was very well working for last many years, as a teaching assistant at Thapar and also drawing royalty for her book as an author in the SBI, Thapar branch, where she has a bank account.
Apart from above Smt. Prerna D/o Shri Shashi Kant, had lodged a false FIR against me and my aged parents, under section 498A/406 of IPC at Fazilka city police station on Page 1 of 12 15.07.2021. However, her SBI detailed account statement at Thapar University would prove otherwise. It would show the expenses that she has made on her family members using the money that I had transferred in her bank account.
In view of above, I humbly request you to furnish me the following information through the RTI Act 2005, in the interest of justice.
(i) Kindly provide me the details of her account statement from date of opening of account to till date.
(ii) Her SBI account number *******6644 is at your branch. Her name is Prerna and her role number at Thapar University is: 90110005.
(iii) Kindly provide me the details of Fixed Deposit and PF account of Prerna and the corresponding detailed account statements till date."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"With reference to your RTI request received by our Office dated 18.04.2023, we submit that the information sought cannot be provided as the information relates to personal information and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which can cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The Appellant was represented by Dr. Maharaj Saran Khanna through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Praveen Chandra Mahesh Yadav, Regional Manager & CPIO along with Elisa Jain, DM attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 2 of 126. The Rep. of the Appellant relied upon the written statement filed by the Appellant stating as under:
"a) The maintenance case section 24 of HMA & CRPC 125 is registered by Prerna in Hon'ble Family Court Kurukshetra and at Hon'ble Family Court Fazilka respectively.
b) The criminal case section 498A,406 of IPC is registered by Prerna in Fazilka City Police station against me and my aged parents.
c) The undersigned financial interest is affected in the matter, so undersigned is seeking legal relief from the Court.
d) The disclosure of financial details, mainly earning/income details of Smt Prerna would surely help me to show my innocence in court.
e) The disclosure of information sought is, therefore, in larger public interest. The information should therefore be provided.
f) BECAUSE, With Reference to CIC Decision No CIC/SG/A/2009/000106/3889 27 June 2009 in the case of Deep Public School D2, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (The Commission has perused the information and does not see any merit in the exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(j) by the Chairman of the School-the third party. In view of this the information will have to be provided.)
g) BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/09/00366 Dated 4th May, 2009(In this case Wife/Appellant asked certified copies of all documents of passport file including marriage certificate and application form as submitted in passport office.
CPIO denied as per sec 8(1)(j) CIC directed CPIO to provide information with remark Information being sought is not a third-party information since the appellant is seeking information about her legally wedded husband.
h) BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No 3774/IC(A)2009 F.No CIC/MA/A/2009/000102 Dated 18th March,2009: ( In this matter wife asked information about her husbands medical expenses, service record etc CPIO denied citing section 8 1(J) Honorable IC M.M.Ansari directed the CPIO to provide all information citing Since Page 3 of 12 appellant is legally married wife and has asked for details about her husband, there is no justification in withholding any part of information to the appellant as it would assist in resolving the issue by the competent authority. As long as couple is not legally seperated refusal to share information ...is untenable.
i) BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No 1816/IC/(A)/2008 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583 Dated 10th Jan,2008(In this matter husband asked PF detail of wife. CPIO denied citing section 8(1)(j). CIC directed CPIO to provide information to husband with remark .The appellants financial interest is affected in the matter, as he is seeking legal relief from the court
j) BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No 2993IC(A)/2008 F. NO. CIC/MA/A/2008/00866 Dated 5th Aug. 2008 (In this case Wife asked whereabouts/residential Address of her husband working in ONGC, CPIO denied citing sec 8(1)(j) .CIC directed to provide information.
k) The commission in its order dated 19/09/2022 corresponding to File Number CIC/CCITL/A/2021/631675 has provided income details of husband to the Wife based on the premise that Wife has filed a maintenance case on the husband and hence should have access to the gross income details of the husband.
On the same logic, I should also have access to bank statements of the wife since this will help me to fight the case effectively. The maintenance amount to be decided in Crpc 125 maintenance case depends on the income differential of the husband and the wife and it is important for the husband to have access to income and job details for this purpose. This is especially because there is a general tendency on part of the applicant filing the maintenance case to hide her income details to extract maximum monthly maintenance from the husband.
This RTI of mine also serves public interest since these days there is a strong tendency among the females to hide actual income details in their affidavits filed before Family Courts in the maintenance cases filed under Crpc 125 and this leads to travesty of justice and husbands are burdened with huge monthly payments based on false facts.
Page 4 of 12Various courts in India have given voice to this concern of mine. Some of the citations from these Judgements are below:
XXX XXX Apart from above Smt. Prerna D/o Shri Shashi Kant, had lodged a false FIR against me and my aged parents, under section 498A/406 of IPC at Fazilka city police station on 15.07.2021. However, her SBI detailed account statement at Thapar University would prove otherwise. It would show the expenses that she has made on her family members using the money that I had transferred in her bank account."
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and emphasized that being the account related information of a third-party customer, the same cannot be provided under the RTI Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the denial of the information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The reliance placed by the Appellant on various decisions of the Commission dating between January, 2008 and June 2009 in the backdrop of different requests for information raised by RTI applicants asking for spouse related details is deemed as irrelevant as on date in view of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India in W.P. (C) 803/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"23. As discussed earlier, the "public interest" argument of the Petitioner is premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her, and requires information, - in the course of a private dispute - to establish the truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no public interest element in the disclosure of such personal information, in the possession of the information provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This court concurs with the view, on an application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has, not been able to justify how such disclosure would be in "public Page 5 of 12 interest": the litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed."
Further, it is observed that the reliance placed by the Appellant on the Commission's decision issued on 19.09.2022 in File No. CIC/CCITL/A/2021/631675 is also misplaced in the facts of the instant case as the averred decision primarily dealt with the question of disclosure of gross and net taxable income of the spouse by the Income Tax Department. While ordering the limited disclosure in the said case, the concerned bench had relied on another decision of the Commission in Rahmat Bano Vs. CPIO, Income Tax Office, wherein after observing that the disclosure of the income tax returns of a husband to the RTI Applicant wife attracts the exemption of Section 8(1)(j), disclosure was ordered in the following manner:
"9. Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held and available with the Public Authority."
9. Now, upon perusing the "judgments" referred to in the Rahmat Bano (supra) case, it is gathered that the bench has relied upon the obiter dictum contained in two judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) and Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 and Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain W.A. No.168/2015 and others along with Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others) W.A. No.170/2015 dated 15.05.2018.
In the case of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile (supra), the SIC allowed disclosure of salary details of the husband to the Advocate of the estranged wife, who had not mentioned in the RTI Application that the same was being filed on behalf of the wife. The High Court observed as under:
Page 6 of 12"....It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she has filed against her husband. In a litigation, wherein the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to salary details no longer remains confined to the category of personal information of the husband alone and it assumes the characteristic of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband and hence accessible by the wife. But, in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife. 9. Then, by the application filed under the provisions of the RTI Act, information regarding mere gross salary of the petitioner has not been sought and what have been sought are the details of the salary, such as amounts relating to gross salary, take home salary and also all the deductions from the gross salary. It is such nature of the information sought which takes the present case towards the category of exempted information."
While in the Sunita Jain (supra) case, the issue under consideration was stated as under:
"The controversy involved in the present writ appeal is whether the information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act or it is covered by Section 4(1)(b)(x) which obliges the public authorities to display on public domain the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees."
And the Court eventually held as under: "While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No.1 is getting."
10. Now, analyzing the above said case laws, it is apparent that each of the orders and obiter dicta was issued in a case specific manner. To emphasize therefore, the Rajesh Ramachandra (supra) case, discusses about the disclosure of salary details of the husband to the Advocate of the wife of the petitioner and in Sunita Jain (supra) case, the disclosure of monthly remuneration as provided for under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act was under contention. Pertinently so, it has come to the notice of this bench that in one such Page 7 of 12 case before the CIC in the matter of Madhumala B. R. vs. ACIT, Ward 3(3)(1), Bangalore vide File No. CIC/CCITB/A/2021/609570, the attention of a coordinate bench was invited to the following cases filed by the Income Tax authorities in Bangalore with the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the orders of the Commission wherein "gross income" of the spouse was allowed to be disclosed citing the right of maintenance, and which are reportedly under an interim stay by the Karnataka High Court:
1. Jammula Padma Manjari in W.P. No. 18778 of 2017 (CIC/BS/A/2016/001440-BJ)
2. Gulsanober Bano in W.P. No. 34625 of 2019 (CIC/CCITB/A/2017/180340-BJ)
3. Neena Bhatnagar Mani in W.P. No. 7367 of 2020 (CIC/CCITB/A/2018/106268-BJ)
4. Chhavi Goel Nee Agarwal in W.P. No. 7281 of 2020 (CIC/CCITB/A/2018/120646-BJ)
5. Devyani Lakher in W.P. No. 7453 of 2020 (CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/104442)
6. Princy Amit Jain in W.P. No. 11233 of 2020 (CIC/CCITB/A/2018/164565).
This bench is of the considered opinion that the facts of the instant case do not warrant applicability of any of the above case laws, as the Appellant here is asking for the bank account statements of his wife, who under the RTI Act is a third party and disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information.Page 8 of 12
Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
On the aspect of larger public interest as argued by the Appellant extensively in his written statement by relying on several other judgments passed exclusively with respect to matrimonial disputes, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied Page 9 of 12 "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:Page 10 of 12
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since the material on record does not ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the averred third party in any of the above referred contexts, the Commission finds no reason to order for relief in the matter under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
11. The Appellant having approached the appropriate Court of Law has access to suitable remedies in pursuit of the alleged matrimonial dispute, therefore, there is no merit in insisting upon disclosure of the bank account statements citing varied case laws which were specific to the facts and circumstance of the respective cases.
12. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 31.12.2024 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office - III, Sheranwala Gate, 2nd Floor, The Mall, Patiala-147001 Page 11 of 12
2. Anubhav Khanna Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)