Central Information Commission
Sinthiya vs Gnctd on 14 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/102327
Sinthiya .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Principal District &
Session Judge, South - East District,
Saket Courts Complex,
New Delhi - 110017 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.04.2025
Date of Decision : 14.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.10.2023
PIO replied on : 10.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 05.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 10.10.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 5
"Request for the following details of Mr. Umesh Kumar with employee ID- 16252756 posted as Civil Judge-01, Room no. 007, Block-I, New Court Building, Saket Court, South East District Court, New Delhi:-
1. Salary slip for July2023, August2023 and September 2023.
2. Form 16 for financial year 2022-23, Financial Year 2021-22, Financial Year 2020-21.
3. Income and Assets declaration submitted by him.
4. Movable and Immovable assets declaration submitted by him.
5. Medical card (DHS/CGHS) copy.
6. Income Tax Return for Financial year 2022-23, Financial year 2021-22, Financial year 2020-21.
7. Details of all medical facilities availed on medical card (DHS/CGHS) till date.
8. Details of all Leave Travel Concession availed till date.
9. Details of all Child Education Assistance availed till date.
The above details are requested by Mrs. Sinthiya (wife of Mr. Umesh Kumar) in connection with the Divorce petition (HMA 1100/22) filed by Mr. Umesh Kumar in Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. (Supporting document hereby attached in Pdf consists of divorce petition filed by Mr. Umesh Kumar and Identity proof of Mrs. Sinthiya)."
2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.11.2023 stating as under:
"Since the information sought by you pertains to a Third Party, the said party was given a Notice under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and it has come out that the Third Party has reservation in disclosing the information sought by you."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 02.01.20240, held as under.
"The information sought by the Appellant cannot be provided in view of bar imposed under section 8 (1) (e) and section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 and information sought is the personal information of Sh. Umesh kumar who has expressed reservation in its disclosure. Therefore, no case is made out for interfering with refusal of the PIO to furnish such information to the Appellant. Appeal is accordingly dismissed."Page 2 of 5
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Adv. Dhananjay Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant in person.
Respondent: Absent
5. Adv. Dhananjay Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant and submitted that information sought was not provided by the Respondent till the date of hearing. He reiterated that the information was crucial for the Appellant to defend her rights in the matrimonial proceedings. Therefore, he prayed for directions to the PIO to provide the information to the Appellant as soon as possible.
Decision:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the counsel of the Appellant and perusal of the records, noted that the Appellant sought information relating to Mr. Umesh Kumar, Civil Judge, Saket Courts. The queries included salary slips, asset declarations, medical and educational benefits, and other service-related information. The counsel of the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is the legally wedded wife of Mr. Umesh Kumar, and that the information is required for legal proceedings in a pending divorce petition (HMA 1100/2022).
7. The information sought includes salary details, Form 16s, and income tax returns from 2020-2023. These are not completely personal when related to a public servant and can be disclosed with safeguards, especially when such disclosure is connected to a legally recognized personal interest, i.e., matrimonial proceedings. It is noted that information related to the ITR may not be held by the Respondent public authority.
8. It is an established principle of law that salary details and other public benefits of public servants are not exempt per se from disclosure, especially Page 3 of 5 when there is a larger public interest or a demonstrated personal interest linked to legal proceedings. In the present case, it was submitted that the Appellant is the spouse of the officer concerned. The request is not for misuse or publicity but to support her claims in a legal proceeding in a competent court. This satisfies the test of bona fide personal interest particularly under matrimonial law where financial disclosures are essential.
9. Moreover, salary drawn from public funds and public service benefits such as child education assistance and LTC are matters of public record and cannot be withheld merely on the ground of personal objection, especially when the third party is a government servant and the information sought is linked to accountability in public office.
10. The Commission finds merit in the appellant's claim that access to financial information of her estranged spouse is necessary for asserting rights in a legal dispute pending before a competent court. As per Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, among other aspects, every public authority is under an obligation to publish following information:
4 (1) (b) (x) "the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations."
11. In light of the above, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent PIO to provide the following information i.e. (i) gross salary/net salary received by Shri Mr. Umesh, (ii) children education assistance if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The information shall be provided for the period mentioned in the RTI application and the same should be provided free of charge as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, under intimation to the Commission. The Commission is of the view that apart from the above, the information sought was rightly denied by the Respondent on the grounds of personal information of third-party in the absence of any larger public interest or disclosure warranted under the applicable Rules/Instructions.
12. Notwithstanding the above, the Commission takes serious note of the absence of the Respondent PIO during the hearing despite duly served notice. The Commission hereby warns the PIO to ensure presence in future hearings Page 4 of 5 and to uphold the dignity and authority of the Commission. Any future absence without just cause may invite penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
13. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Addl. District Judge, South - East District, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi - 110017 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)