Karnataka High Court
Income Tax Officer vs Smt Gulsanober on 21 February, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 34625 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
INCOME TAX OFFICER AND CPIO
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE
PRESTIGE ALPHA POSTBOX NO.1
ELECTRONIC CITY POST
BANGALORE-560500
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. DILIP AND
SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ., ADVOCATES)
AND
1. SMT GULSANOBER
BANO ZAFAR ALI ANSARI
C/O HAYAT PALACE, 101, 1ST FLOOR
DR NAIR ROAD, OPP NAIR HOSPITAL
Digitally signed MUMBAI -400008
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH 2. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
COURT OF 2ND FLOOR, C-WING
KARNATAKA
AUGUST KRANTI BHAWAN
BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE
NEW DELHI-110066
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KEMPARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN., DSGI FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.4.2019 BEARING FILE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
NO. CIC/CCITB/A/2017/180340-BJ PASSED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner/Income Tax Officer is before this Court
seeking for the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order
dated 12.4.2019 bearing File No.
CIC/CCITB/A/2017/180340-BJ passed by the
second respondent produced as Annexure-D and
etc.
b) Issue such other writ or directions deems fit to
grant the facts and circumstances of the present
case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The Petitioner, who is serving as the Chief Public
Information Officer (CPIO) at the Central Processing
Centre of the Income Tax Department, Bengaluru,
was seized of an application dated 07.08.2017
submitted by Respondent No.1 under the provisions
of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "the
RTI Act"). Respondent No.1, who is the wife of Sri
Zafar Ali Asar Ali Ansari, sought disclosure of certain
information relating to her husband. The information
requested pertained to the Assessment Years 2012-
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
2017 and included copies of his Income Tax Returns,
details of tax paid, and the name and address of the
bank(s) connected with his financial records.
3. Upon consideration of the request, the Petitioner, by
order dated 31.08.2017, rejected the application
invoking Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The rejection
was premised on the ground that the information
sought constituted third-party information held by
the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity
and was therefore exempt from disclosure. It is
stated that notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act
was issued to the concerned third party, namely Sri
Zafar Ali Asar Ali Ansari. However, no response was
received from him within the prescribed period.
4. Aggrieved by the rejection, Respondent No.1
preferred a statutory appeal dated 07.09.2017
before the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC),
who was functioning as the First Appellate Authority
under the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority, by order
dated 23.09.2017, dismissed the appeal. It was held
that the information sought fell within the
exemptions contemplated under Section 8(1) of the
RTI Act and that the Income Tax Department holds
such information in a fiduciary relationship. The
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Appellate Authority further observed that disclosure
of such information to a third party would be
permissible only if a larger public interest so
warranted, and concluded that no such larger public
interest had been established by Respondent No.1.
5. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 carried the matter in a
second appeal before the Central Information
Commission. The Commission, by order dated
12.04.2019, allowed the appeal and directed the
Petitioner to furnish the information sought, placing
reliance upon an earlier order passed in W.P. No.
18778/2017 (Smt. Jammalu Padma Manjari v. CPIO
& DCIT). It is this order dated 12.04.2019, passed by
the Central Information Commission, that is called in
question in the present writ petition.
6. Sri Y.V.Ravi Raj, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, would submit that:
6.1. Insofar as the justification for rejection is
concerned, the Petitioner contends that the
information sought by Respondent No.1
constitutes purely private and personal
information relating to her husband. It is
submitted that such information was furnished
by the assessee to the Income Tax Department
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
exclusively for the purpose of assessment and
compliance under the provisions of the Income-
tax law. According to the Petitioner, the
Department receives and retains such material
in a fiduciary capacity, reposing trust in the
confidentiality of disclosures made by the
assessee.
6.2. It is therefore asserted that the information so
obtained cannot be divulged, either wholly or in
part, to Respondent No.1, who is a third party
within the meaning of the Right to Information
Act, 2005. Any disclosure, it is contended,
would amount to a breach of the fiduciary
relationship between the Department and the
assessee and would be contrary to the
statutory exemptions contemplated under
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. On this premise, it
is submitted that the rejection of the request
was legally justified and in consonance with the
protective framework governing confidential tax
information.
6.3. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Adarsh vs. The State of Maharashtra1, more
particularly, paras 10, 11, 12 and 14 thereof,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
"10. This Court has dealt with the issue of
applicability of Section 8 and 11 of the RTI Act
by analysing the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Central Public Information
Officer, Supreme Court of India V/s. Subhash
Chandra Agarwal (supra) and the Court has
explained that the RTI Act operationalise the
disclosure of information held by public
authorities to reduce the asymmetry of
information between individual citizens and the
State apparatus. However, the Constitution
Bench has observed that enacting the RTI Act
the Parliament was cognizant that an
unrestricted disclosure of information could be
fiscally inefficient, result and would do real-
world harms and infringe the rights of others.
Thus, the Constitution Bench while quoting the
provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act explained
the non-obstante phrase carved exceptions
under Section 8 to the general obligation to
disclose information under the RTI Act.
Therefore, where the conditions set out in any
of the sub-clauses of Clause (1) of Section 8
are satisfied, Information Officers are under no
obligation to provide information of any
applicant. Clause (d) of Section 8 (1) provides
that information is exempt from disclosure
where such disclosure would harm the
competitive position of a third party and the
exemption is further qualified by the phrase,
unless the competent authority is satisfied that
1
WP.No.11135/2025 dated 11135/2025
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
larger public interest warrants the disclosure.
Thus, the exemption under clause (d) of
Section 8(1) is not absolute but is qualified and
cannot be invoked where a larger public
interest exists. In the context of clause J of
Section 8 (1) explanation provides a qualified
exemption from disclosure where the
information relates to personal information the
disclosure of which has no relationship to
public activity or interest and the information
would cause an unwarranted invasion of the
privacy. However, the exemption may be
overridden where the Information Officer is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure. Thus, clause (j) of Section 8 is
not an absolute exemption from the disclosure
of information on the ground of privacy and
the disclosure is exempted where personal
information is sought and there is no larger
public interest. Thus under Section 8 (1) (j) an
information which has relevance to privacy and
relates to personal information can be denied.
If such an information relates to a third party
then Section 2 (n) of the RTI Act defines third
party to mean a person other than a citizen
requesting information and includes a public
authority. Section 11 is concerned with third
party information. Third party information is an
information which relates or has been supplied
by any other person other than the information
applicant and has been treated as confidential
by third party. Wherever the disclosure of third
party is sought and such information has been
prima facie treated as confidential by the third
party in question, the procedure under Section
11 of the RTI Act is mandatory. The provision
expressly mandates the Information Officer to
consider the objections of third party while
deciding whether to disclose or not disclose the
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
information. In the instant case the information
which is sought relates to the third party and
the GST Authorities holds the Information i.e.
GST returns of the third party. When such an
information is asked the Authorities constituted
has to issue under Section 11 to the effected
person as this provision is held to be
mandatory. As such, the first objection of the
Petitioner that no notice ought to have been
given to the Industries whose GST returns
were asked by applicant is rejected.
11. The next issue is whether Section 158 of
the GST Act would also be an impediment in
providing information under the RTI Act.
Section 158 (1) of the GST Act provides that
the Information of the GST cannot be provided
to third parties. For ready reference, Section
158 of GST Act is as below:
"Section 158. Disclosure of Information by a
public servant.-
(1) All particulars contained in any statement
made, return furnished or accounts or
documents produced in accordance with this
Act, or in any record of evidence given in the
course of any proceedings under this Act
(other than proceedings before a criminal
court), or in any record of any proceedings
under this Act shall, save as provided in sub-
section (3), not be disclosed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), no
court shall, save as otherwise provided in sub-
section (3), require any officer appointed or
authorised under this Act to produce before it
or to give evidence before it in respect of
particulars referred to in sub-section (1).
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall
apply to the disclosure of,-
(a) any particulars in respect of any statement,
return, accounts, documents, evidence,
affidavit or deposition, for the purpose of any
prosecution under the Indian Penal Code or the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of
1988), or any other law for the time being in
force; or
(b) any particulars to the Central Government
or the State Government or to any person
acting in the implementation of this Act, for the
purposes of carrying out the objects of this
Act; or
(c) any particulars when such disclosure is
occasioned by the lawful exercise under this
Act of any process for the service of any notice
or recovery of any demand; or
(d) any particulars to a civil court in any suit or
proceedings, to which the Government or any
authority under this Act is a party, which
relates to any matter arising out of any
proceedings under this Act or under any other
law for the time being in force authorising any
such authority to exercise any powers
thereunder; or
(e) any particulars to any officer appointed for
the purpose of audit of tax receipts or refunds
of the tax imposed by this Act; or
(f) any particulars where such particulars are
relevant for the purposes of any inquiry into
the conduct of any officer appointed or
authorised under this Act, to any person or
persons appointed as an inquiry officer under
any law for the time being in force; or
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
(g) any such particulars to an officer of the
Central Government or of any State
Government, as may be necessary for the
purpose of enabling that Government to levy
or realise any tax or duty; or
(h) any particulars when such disclosure is
occasioned by the lawful exercise by a public
servant or any other statutory authority, of his
or its powers under any law for the time being
in force; or
(i) any particulars relevant to any inquiry into
a charge of misconduct in connection with any
proceedings under this Act against a practising
advocate, a tax practitioner, a practising cost
accountant, a practising chartered accountant,
a practising company secretary to the authority
empowered to take disciplinary action against
the members practising the profession of a
legal practitioner, a cost accountant, a
chartered accountant or a company secretary,
as the case may be; or
(j) any particulars to any agency appointed for
the purposes of data entry on any automated
system or for the purpose of operating,
upgrading or maintaining any automated
system where such agency is contractually
bound not to use or disclose such particulars
except for the aforesaid purposes; or
(k) any particulars to an officer of the
Government as may be necessary for the
purposes of any other law for the time being in
force; or
(l) any information relating to any class of
taxable persons or class of transactions for
publication, if, in the opinion of the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Commissioner, it is desirable in the public
interest, to publish such information."
12. Section 158 (1) of the GST Act specifically
prohibits giving Information of GST returns
except as provided in sub-section 3, so also
Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act prohibits
information which relates to personal
information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or
which would cause unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of the individual unless the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the appellate authority,
as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information.
14. In the instant case, the Petitioner has
applied for the information contending that
that there is a large scale fraud and that he
needs the information in order to prosecute the
industries. The allegation is bald in nature.
There is no prima facie evidence to show that
the industries have indulged in large scale
fraud. Although the response given by the
industries is that the industries are closed on
account of the harassment by the Petitioner.
Based on the reply the Authorities have not
provided Information of GST returns of the
Industries as there is no larger public interest
involved in the matter. Thus no case is made
out under proviso to Section 8 (1) (j) to grant
information.
6.4. By relying on Adarsh he submits that the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court examined the
scope and interplay of Sections 8 and 11 of the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Right to Information Act, 2005, in the light of
the principles enunciated by the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central
Public Information Officer, Supreme Court
of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. It is
contended that while the RTI Act was enacted
to operationalise transparency and reduce
informational asymmetry between citizens and
the State, Parliament was simultaneously
conscious that unrestricted disclosure could
result in fiscal inefficiency, real-world harm,
and infringement of the rights of third parties.
The non obstante clause contained in Section
8(1) carves out specific exemptions from the
general obligation of disclosure. Where the
conditions stipulated under any of the sub-
clauses of Section 8(1) are satisfied, the
Information Officer is under no statutory
obligation to furnish such information.
6.5. It is further submitted that clauses (d) and (j)
of Section 8(1) provide qualified exemptions. In
particular, clause (j) protects personal
information, the disclosure of which bears no
relationship to any public activity or public
interest and which would amount to an
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
unwarranted invasion of privacy. The
exemption, though not absolute, can be
overridden only upon a demonstrable showing
of larger public interest. In cases involving
third-party information treated as confidential,
the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act
is mandatory, and the objections of the third
party must be duly considered before any
disclosure is ordered.
6.6. The Petitioner further submits that the
reasoning adopted in Adarsh is apposite to the
present case. Just as GST returns were held to
be protected from disclosure in the absence of
a larger public interest, income tax returns and
related financial particulars of an assessee are
similarly confidential in nature. Such
information is statutorily protected, and its
disclosure, absent compelling public interest,
would amount to an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. The mere assertion of grievance or
personal necessity does not elevate the matter
to one of larger public interest.
6.7. On the strength of Adarsh, it is urged that the
object of the RTI Act is not to enable
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
indiscriminate access to personal financial
information, but to promote transparency in
public functioning. Disclosure of private tax
information between estranged spouses, it is
contended, falls outside the purview of the Act's
transparency mandate and would defeat the
statutory safeguards embedded in Section 8.
6.8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that
Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 contemplates
exemption from disclosure where such
disclosure would harm the competitive position
of a third party. Though the exemption under
clause (d) is qualified by the expression "unless
the competent authority is satisfied that larger
public interest warrants the disclosure," it is
submitted that such larger public interest must
be real, demonstrable, and proximate.
6.9. According to the Petitioner, disclosure of
income tax returns of one spouse to the other
neither arises out of any public activity nor
advances any public interest. The information
sought is personal financial information, the
disclosure of which does not subserve the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
transparency objectives of the RTI Act. In the
absence of a finding of overriding public
interest, it is contended that the exemption
operates with full force, and therefore, the
Central Information Commission could not have
directed disclosure of the income tax returns.
6.10. It is further submitted that the husband, being
an assessee under the Income-tax regime,
squarely answers the description of a "third
party" within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the
RTI Act, which defines "third party" to mean a
person other than the citizen making the
request for information. Since the applicant is
Respondent No.1 and the information sought
pertains to her husband, the husband must
necessarily be treated as a third party for the
purposes of the Act.
6.11. On that premise, it is argued that any
information relating to such a third party is
confidential in nature and protected from
disclosure unless the statutory conditions are
strictly satisfied. The mere fact that the
applicant is the spouse of the assessee does not
dilute the confidentiality attached to income tax
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
returns. It is emphasised that income tax
returns not only contain personal financial
particulars of the assessee but may also
disclose transactional details involving other
individuals and entities. Disclosure of such
information, it is urged, would potentially
infringe the privacy rights of multiple persons
and defeat the statutory safeguards embedded
in Section 8 of the RTI Act.
6.12. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Central Public Information Officer,
Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash
Chandra Agarwal2, more particularly, paras
235, 251 and 293 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
235. The appellant argued that the information about
the assets of Judges is exempt from disclosure, by
virtue of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act which casts a
fiduciary duty on the Chief Justice of India to hold the
asset declarations in confidence. It is argued by the
respondent that Judges, while declaring their assets,
do so in their official capacity in accordance with the
1997 Resolution and not as private individuals. It is
urged that the process of information gathering about
the assets of the Judges by the Chief Justice of India,
is in his official capacity and therefore, no fiduciary
relationship exists between them.
2
2020 (5) SCC 481
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
251. The third referral question to be answered by
this Court is:"Whether the information sought for is
exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act." The
question requires this Court to determine whether
and under what circumstances the information sought
by the applicant should be disclosed under the
provisions of the RTI Act. This Court is cognizant that
in interpreting the statutory scheme of the RTI Act,
the constitutional right to know and the constitutional
right to privacy of citizens are also implicated. In
answering the question, it is necessary to analyse the
scheme of the RTI Act, the role of the exemptions
under Section 8, the interface between the statutory
rights and duties under Section 8(1)(j) and the
constitutional rights under Part III of the Constitution.
293. The right to information and the need for
transparency in the case of elected officials is
grounded in the democratic need to facilitate better
decision-making by the public. Transparency and the
right to information directly contribute to the ability
of citizens to monitor and make more informed
decisions with respect to the conduct of elected
officials. Where the misconduct of an elected
representative is exposed to the public, citizens can
choose not to vote for the person at the next poll. In
this manner, the democratic process coupled with the
right to information facilitates better administration
and provides powerful incentives for good public
decision-making. In the case of Judges, citizens do
not possess a direct agency relationship. Therefore,
the "public interest" in disclosing information in
regard to a Judge cannot be sourced on the need for
ensuring democratic accountability through better
public decision-making but must be located
elsewhere."
6.13. By relying on Subhash Chandra Agarwal's
case, his submission is that in that case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
contention that information relating to the
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
assets of Judges was exempt from disclosure
under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act on the
ground that such declarations were held in a
fiduciary capacity. The issue revolved around
whether the Chief Justice of India, while
receiving asset declarations, held them in
confidence pursuant to a fiduciary relationship.
The Petitioner emphasises that the Supreme
Court examined the scope of fiduciary
obligations under Section 8(1)(e) and the
nature of confidentiality attached to such
disclosures.
6.14. It is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasised the need to balance the statutory
scheme of the RTI Act with the constitutional
right to privacy under Part III of the
Constitution. The Court recognised that
exemptions under Section 8, particularly
Section 8(1)(j), are not to be mechanically
disregarded and that disclosure of personal
information must be tested against privacy
concerns and the requirement of a larger public
interest.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
6.15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
democratic justification for transparency in
respect of elected representatives stems from
the need for public accountability in a
representative system. However, in the case of
Judges, who do not stand in a direct agency
relationship with the electorate, the "public
interest" in disclosure cannot be equated with
democratic accountability in the electoral sense.
6.16. On the strength of the aforesaid observations,
learned counsel submits that the relationship
between the Income Tax Department and an
assessee is analogous, for the present purpose,
to a fiduciary relationship. Just as asset
declarations made by Judges were argued to be
held in confidence, the income tax returns and
financial particulars furnished by an assessee
are submitted to the Department under
statutory compulsion with an expectation of
confidentiality. It is his submission that if not
for the statutory compulsion, such information
and finer details would not have been provided
by the Assesse. It is therefore contended that
such information is held in a fiduciary capacity
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
and attracts the exemption under Section
8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
6.17. It is urged that disclosure of such personal
financial information to a third party, even if
that third party is the spouse of the assessee,
would trench upon the privacy rights of the
individual and would not advance any
identifiable public interest. Hence, the direction
issued by the Central Information Commission,
according to the Petitioner, runs contrary to the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
6.18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
contends that the information sought, namely
the income tax returns, assessment particulars
and financial disclosures of the assessee,
squarely falls within the protective ambit of
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,
2005. It is submitted that such material
constitutes personal information, the disclosure
of which has no relationship to any public
activity or public interest and would amount to
an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
6.19. According to the Petitioner, while the RTI Act
recognises a statutory right to information, that
right is not absolute and must necessarily be
balanced against the constitutional right to
privacy. Section 8(1)(j) embodies this
legislative balance by carving out an exemption
where personal information is sought without a
demonstrable larger public interest. Thus, the
"right to know" cannot override the right to
privacy except in circumstances expressly
contemplated by the statute.
6.20. It is further submitted that the only permissible
ground for disclosure of such protected
personal information would be the existence of
a larger public interest warranting such
disclosure. The concept of public interest, it is
argued, must transcend individual disputes and
relate to transparency in public functioning or
accountability in governance. In the present
case, the request emanates from a private
matrimonial context and does not subserve any
broader public cause.
6.21. On this basis, learned counsel reiterates that
the Income Tax Department stands in a
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
fiduciary relationship with the assessee; the
financial information furnished by the assessee
is inherently private; and in the absence of any
overriding public interest, the protection
afforded by Section 8(1)(j) operates in full
measure. Consequently, it is contended that no
disclosure to Respondent No.1 is warranted
under the RTI Act.
6.22. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Central Board of Secondary
Education and another Vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay and others3, more
particularly, paras 12, 20 and 66 thereof, which
are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
12. To consider these questions, it is necessary
to refer to the Statement of Objects and
Reasons, the Preamble and the relevant
provisions of the RTI Act. The RTI Act was
enacted in order to ensure smoother, greater
and more effective access to information and
provide an effective framework for effectuating
the right to information recognised under Article
19 of the Constitution. The Preamble to the Act
declares the object sought to be achieved by the
RTI Act thus:
"An Act to provide for setting out the practical
regime of right to information for citizens to
secure access to information under the control of
3
(2011) 8 SCC 497
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
public authorities, in order to promote
transparency and accountability in the working
of every public authority, the constitution of a
Central Information Commission and State
Information Commissions and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Whereas the Constitution of India has
established democratic republic;
And whereas democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which
are vital to its functioning and also to contain
corruption and to hold Governments and their
instrumentalities accountable to the governed;
And whereas revelation of information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public
interests including efficient operations of the
Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal
resources and the preservation of confidentiality
of sensitive information;
And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interests while preserving the
paramountcy of the democratic ideal;"
20. It will also be useful to refer to a few
decisions of this Court which considered the
importance and scope of the right to
information. In State of U.P. v. Raj Narain
[(1975) 4 SCC 428] this Court observed: (SCC
p. 453, para 74)
"74. In a Government of responsibility like ours,
where all the agents of the public must be
responsible for their conduct, there can be but
few secrets. The people of this country have a
right to know every public act, everything that is
done in a public way, by their public
functionaries. They are entitled to know the
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
particulars of every public transaction in all its
bearing. The right to know, which is derived
from the concept of freedom of speech, though
not absolute, is a factor which should make one
wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions
which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on
public security."
(emphasis supplied)
66. The right to information is a cherished right.
Information and right to information are
intended to be formidable tools in the hands of
responsible citizens to fight corruption and to
bring in transparency and accountability. The
provisions of the RTI Act should be enforced
strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to
light the necessary information under clause (b)
of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to
securing transparency and accountability in the
working of public authorities and in discouraging
corruption. But in regard to other information
[that is, Information other than those
enumerated in Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) of the
Act], equal importance and emphasis are given
to other public interests (like confidentiality of
sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary
relationships, efficient operation of
Governments, etc.)."
6.23. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further places
reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay, and
submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
analysing the Statement of Objects and
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Reasons and the Preamble of the RTI Act,
emphasised that the Act was enacted to
promote transparency and accountability in the
working of public authorities and to secure
access to information in order to strengthen
democratic governance. However, the Court
also recognised that disclosure of information
may conflict with other public interests,
including preservation of confidentiality of
sensitive information, efficient functioning of
the Government, and fiduciary relationships.
6.24. Learned counsel submits that the right to know,
though flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution, is not absolute. It is circumscribed
by legitimate considerations of secrecy where
warranted, particularly when the information
sought does not pertain to public acts or public
transactions carried out by public functionaries
in a public capacity.
6.25. It is contended that while the RTI Act is a
potent tool to combat corruption and ensure
transparency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically observed that equal importance
must be accorded to other public interests,
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
such as confidentiality of sensitive information,
protection of fiduciary relationships, and
efficient functioning of public authorities. The
Act is not intended to be deployed in a manner
that disregards these countervailing interests.
6.26. On the strength of the above principles, learned
counsel submits that the right exercisable
under the RTI Act is essentially a right to seek
information regarding the functioning, actions,
and decisions of public authorities and public
functionaries. It is not a mechanism to access
private personal information of individuals,
which happens to be in the custody of a public
authority.
6.27. According to the Petitioner, income tax returns
are private documents submitted by an
assessee to the Department in compliance with
statutory requirements. Such returns do not
relate to any public act performed by a public
functionary but concern the personal financial
affairs of an individual. Hence, it is contended
that disclosure of income tax returns does not
fall within the core objective of the RTI Act and
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
is instead protected by the exemptions carved
out under Section 8.
6.28. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that
the right to information, as recognised under
the RTI Act, is intended to operate as a
powerful instrument in the hands of responsible
citizens to promote transparency, ensure
accountability, and combat corruption in public
administration. The legislative intent, according
to him, is to expose maladministration and
bring clarity to the functioning of public
authorities.
6.29. It is submitted that the present request does
not advance any such objective. The
information sought pertains exclusively to the
personal financial affairs of a private individual
and arises in the context of a private dispute
between spouses. There is no allegation of
corruption, misuse of public office, or
irregularity in the functioning of the Income Tax
Department. Nor is there any element of public
accountability implicated in the request.
6.30. In the absence of any demonstrable larger
public interest or public purpose, it is contended
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
that the machinery of the RTI Act cannot be
invoked to secure disclosure of private tax
information. The statutory exemptions under
Section 8, particularly those protecting fiduciary
relationships and personal privacy, would
therefore operate as a bar to disclosure.
6.31. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs.
Cen. Information Commr. & Ors.,4 more
particularly, paras 13 and 14 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the
courts below that the details called for by the
Petitioner ie copies of all memos issued to the
third respondent, show cause notices and orders
of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be
personal information as defined in clause (j) of
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of
an employee/officer in an organisation is
primarily a matter between the employee and
the employer and normally those aspects are
governed by the service rules which fall under
the expression personal information, the
disclosure of which has no relationship to any
public activity or public interest. On the other
hand, the disclosure of which would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of that
individual. (Of course, in a given case, if the
Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer of the Appellate
4
SLP(C) No.27734/2012
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Authority is satisfied that the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such
information, appropriate orders could be passed
but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a
matter of right.
14. The details disclosed by a person in his
income tax returns are personal information
which stand exempted from disclosure under
clause (i) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless
involves a larger public interest and the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure of such information."
6.32. By relying on Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande., he submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court categorically held that service
records, memos, show-cause notices, and
orders of censure relating to an employee
constitute "personal information" within the
meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that such
matters primarily concern the relationship
between employer and employee and their
disclosure would ordinarily amount to an
unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless
justified by a larger public interest.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
6.33. More significantly, learned counsel submits that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressly held that
details disclosed by a person in his income tax
returns are personal information and are
exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is
established and the competent authority is
satisfied that disclosure is warranted.
6.34. It is contended that the issue in the present
case stands squarely covered. Income tax
returns, by their very nature, contain personal
financial particulars of an individual and fall
within the protective ambit of Section 8(1)(j).
The exemption is qualified only by the existence
of a larger public interest, which must be
demonstrated and cannot be presumed.
6.35. According to the Petitioner, in the present case,
the request emanates from a private
matrimonial dispute and does not involve any
question of public accountability, corruption, or
misuse of public office. In the absence of any
overriding public interest, the information
sought remains exempt from disclosure.
Therefore, it is submitted that the direction
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
issued by the Central Information Commission
is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande.
6.36. He relies upon the decision in Shailesh Gandhi
Vs. Central Information Commission5, more
particularly, para 25 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"25. In my view therefore, the proviso cannot be
sought to be interpreted in the manner which the
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to do.
There is also a basic fallacy in the contention
raised on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner
wants to proceed on the hypothesis that the
information sought by him cannot be denied to
the Parliament. In so far as the Parliament is
concerned, the Parliament has its own rules of
business and it therefore cannot be presumed
that the information in respect of the Income Tax
Returns of a Member of Legislature would be
sought. The same would undoubtedly be in the
discretion of the Honourable Speaker. In the said
context, it is also relevant to refer to Section 75A
of the Representation of the People Act under
which every elected candidate for a House of
Parliament has to furnish information relating to
the movable and immovable property, his
liabilities to any public financial institution, his
liabilities to the Central Government or the State
Government to the Chairman of the Council of
States or the Speaker of the House of the People
i.e. Loksabha or the Chairman of the Council of
5
(2015) 58 Taxmann.Com 147 (Bombay)
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
the State i.e. Rajyasabha. Hence there are
adequate provisions in the Representation of the
People Act under which the information sought is
to be provided to the Parliament to the extent
mentioned in the said provisions and therefore
reliance cannot be placed on the proviso to
Section 8(1)(j) to contend that the exemption
provided in the said Section would not operate."
6.37. By relying on Shailesh Gandhi, he submits
that in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court examined the scope of the proviso
to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and rejected
the contention that information which could
hypothetically be sought by Parliament must
necessarily be disclosed under the RTI Act. The
Court observed that Parliament functions under
its own procedural framework and statutory
mechanisms, including specific legislative
provisions such as Section 75A of the
Representation of the People Act, which
mandate disclosure of certain financial
particulars by elected representatives.
Therefore, the mere possibility that information
could be sought in another forum does not
dilute or override the exemptions provided
under Section 8(1)(j).
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
6.38. On the strength of the above reasoning,
learned counsel submits that the exemptions
carved out under Clause (j) of Sub-section (1)
of Section 8 are substantive protections and
must be given full effect. The proviso cannot be
so interpreted as to render the exemption
otiose. Personal information, particularly
financial information such as income tax
returns, remains protected unless the statutory
requirement of a larger public interest is clearly
satisfied.
6.39. It is therefore contended that the Central
Information Commission, while directing
disclosure, failed to accord due weight to the
statutory exemption under Section 8(1)(j) and
the settled judicial position that such
exemptions are not to be lightly disregarded.
6.40. He relies upon the decision in CPIO/Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax6, more
particularly, para 19 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"19. The issue raised herein has been settled
by a Bench of three Member Bench of the CIC
which, in the opinion of this Court, is binding on
6
(2024) 464 ITR 672 (Delhi)
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
the Bench which has passed the impugned
order. A Bench of three Commissioners of the
CIC in G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income
Tax (Investigation), 2008 SCC OnLine CIC
1008, while considering the very same issue
has observed as under:
"15. Thus, both the Right to Information Act,
2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 deal with disclosure of information. While
Right to Information Act is a general law
concerning the disclosure of information by the
public authorities, Section 138 of the Income
Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with
disclosure of information concerning the
assesses. This Commission in "Rakesh Kumar
Gupta v. ITAT, decided on 18th September,
2007 decided by a Full Bench, has dealt with
the issue of applicability of special law to the
exclusion of the general law. The Commission
has relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's
decision in "Chandra Prakash Tiwari v.
Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322". The
following two paragraphs from the said decision
of the Commission are pertinent and quoted
below:
37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore,
cannot be held to be overridden by a later
general enactment or simply because the latter
opens up with a nonobstante clause unless
there is clear inconsistency between the two
legislations -- one which is later in order of time
and the other which is a special enactment. This
issue came again for consideration before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari
v. Shakuntala Shukla --AIR 2002 SC 2322 and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with
approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference
to two Latin Maxims in the following words:
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
"It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier
Act must give place to a later, if the two cannot
be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori -
non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriors
trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act
may repeal another by express words or by
implication; for it is enough if there be words
which by necessary implication repeal it. But
repeal by implication is never to be favoured,
and must not be imputed to the legislature
without necessity, or strong reason, to be
shown by the party imputing it. It is only
effected where the provisions of the later
enactment are so inconsistent with, or
repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two
cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are
so plainly repugnant to each other that effect
cannot be given to both at the same time a
repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are
not repealed by general Acts unless there be
some express reference to the previous
legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the
two Acts standing together, which prevents the
maxim generalia specialibus non derogant
(Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For
where there are general words in a later Act
capable of reasonable application without being
extended to subjects specially dealt with by
earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an
indication of a particular intention to that effect,
the presumption is that the general words were
not intended to repeal the earlier and special
legislation, or to take away a particular privilege
of a particular class of persons."
38. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex
Court also cited with approval an earlier
decision in Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v.
Thakur Manmohan Dey - MANU/SC/0202/1966,
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
in which it was indicated that an earlier special
law cannot be held to have been abrogated by
mere implication. That being so, the argument
regarding implied repeal has to be rejected for
both the reasons set out above."
Propriety demanded that the CIC ought to have
followed the opinion of the larger Bench, which
is binding on it."
6.41. By relying on Girish Mittal, he submits that in
that case reliance was placed on the earlier
three-Member Bench decision of the Central
Information Commission in G.R. Rawal v.
Director General of Income Tax
(Investigation).
6.42. It is submitted that in the said decisions, the
interplay between the Right to Information Act,
2005 and Section 138 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 was specifically considered. The reasoning
adopted therein proceeds on the principle that
while the RTI Act is a general enactment
governing access to information held by public
authorities, Section 138 of the Income-tax Act
is a special statutory provision dealing
specifically with disclosure of information
relating to assessees.
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
6.43. Relying upon the well-established maxim
generalia specialibus non derogant, it is
contended that a later general law does not
impliedly override an earlier special law unless
there is clear inconsistency or irreconcilable
repugnancy between the two. Repeal by
implication is not to be readily inferred.
6.44. Section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act
expressly regulates disclosure of information
relating to an assessee and vests discretion in
specified high-ranking authorities, namely the
Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief
Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or
Commissioner, to determine whether such
information may be furnished. The statutory
framework thus creates a specific mechanism
and threshold for disclosure of income tax
information.
6.45. According to the Petitioner, this special
statutory regime governing confidentiality of
tax information would prevail over the general
provisions of the RTI Act by virtue of settled
principles of statutory interpretation. It is
therefore contended that Section 138 of the
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Income-tax Act operates as a self-contained
code concerning disclosure of assessee
information and cannot be bypassed by
invoking Section 22 of the RTI Act.
Consequently, the direction issued by the
Central Information Commission is stated to be
contrary to the binding statutory scheme and
the settled position of law.
6.46. In the aforesaid factual and legal backdrop,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the impugned order passed by the Central
Information Commission is unsustainable in
law.
6.47. It is contended that the Commission has failed
to properly appreciate:
6.47.1. The fiduciary relationship between the
Income Tax Department and the
assessee;
6.47.2. The statutory exemptions under Sections
8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act;
6.47.3. The protection afforded to personal
financial information under binding
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court; and
6.47.4. The overriding effect of the special
mechanism under Section 138 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961.
6.48. According to the Petitioner, the information
sought pertains exclusively to private financial
affairs of a third party, does not relate to any
public activity, and does not satisfy the
threshold of larger public interest. The direction
to disclose, therefore, is alleged to be contrary
to the statutory scheme and settled judicial
principles.
6.49. On these grounds, it is submitted that the
present writ petition deserves to be allowed,
the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the
Central Information Commission is liable to be
set aside, and the RTI application filed by
Respondent No.1 deserves to be rejected.
7. Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for Respondent No.1,
submits that:
7.1. Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of
Sri Zafar Ali S/o Asar Ali. In that view of the
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
matter, it is contended that the husband cannot
be treated as a "third party" vis-à-vis his wife
in a strict or adversarial sense, or vice versa,
particularly when the information sought
pertains to issues directly impacting her legal
rights. The relationship between the parties,
being matrimonial, carries with it reciprocal
obligations, including financial disclosure in
appropriate proceedings.
7.2. Respondent No.1 had instituted proceedings
under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said
proceedings, it was specifically pleaded that the
husband was carrying on business in Bengaluru
under the name S.A. Trading Company,
engaged in the sale and purchase of sewing
machines. Though the husband is stated to
have indicated that he could produce income
tax returns pertaining to his business, he
neither disclosed the turnover nor produced the
relevant income tax returns before the Court.
7.3. It is submitted that an application was filed
before the concerned Magistrate seeking a
direction to the husband to produce his income
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
tax returns. However, in the final adjudication
of the matter, the said aspect was not
effectively addressed. The Court, observing that
there was no specific evidence regarding the
earnings of the husband, rejected the claim of
maintenance at Rs.75,000/- per month and
awarded only Rs.7,000/- per month.
7.4. Aggrieved by the quantum awarded,
Respondent No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal
No.303/2017 before the Sessions Court. The
appellate court also declined to enhance the
maintenance on the ground that no
documentary evidence had been placed on
record to establish the actual income of the
husband. It is further submitted that even the
maintenance amount so awarded was not
regularly paid, resulting in the issuance of
recovery-cum-arrest warrants. An application
seeking stay of the distress warrant was also
filed by the husband.
7.5. It is in this factual backdrop that Respondent
No.1 invoked the provisions of the RTI Act and
sought copies of the income tax returns filed by
her husband, with the specific object of placing
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
the same before the competent courts to
substantiate her claim for maintenance.
7.6. Learned counsel emphasises that in the RTI
application itself, Respondent No.1 clearly
disclosed that she was the wife of the
concerned assessee and that the information
was sought in connection with proceedings
pending before the XLVI Metropolitan
Magistrate Court at Mumbai under the Domestic
Violence Act. It was expressly stated that the
information was required because the courts
had recorded a finding that no specific proof of
income had been produced.
7.7. It is therefore submitted that Respondent No.1
has no alternative or effective mechanism to
establish the true income of her husband
except by obtaining copies of the income tax
returns filed by him. The income details being
within the exclusive knowledge and control of
the husband and the Income Tax Department,
denial of such information would effectively
defeat her statutory right to seek appropriate
maintenance.
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
7.8. According to learned counsel, these aspects
were duly considered by the Central
Information Commission, which, upon
appreciating the peculiar facts and the nature of
the request, allowed the appeal and directed
disclosure. It is therefore contended that the
order of the Central Information Commission is
reasoned, justified, and does not warrant
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
7.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court in Rajendra Vasantlal
Shah Vs. Central Information
Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors7. more
particularly, paras 8.2 and 8.4 thereof, which
are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"8.2 Accounts of respondent No.4, being a
Religious Charitable Trust, is statutorily audited,
whose administration is subject to certain
controls by the Charity Commissioner
Information Commissioner, under the Bombay
Public Trust Act. Its action of filing income-tax
returns with the In-come Tax Department
cannot be, in the con-text of the RTI. 'Act,
viewed as a fiduciary relationship. No contrary
interpretation can be given to defeat the object
of the act, rendering lack of transparency in
7
AIR 2011 Gujarat 70
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
functioning of public and religious charitable
trusts which carry considerable importance in
their functioning, which touch greater portion of
the population through different activities and
would also make them immune from publishing
their accounts, expenditure, funds, etc.
8.4 As already noted, respondent No.4 is a
religious charitable Trust, functioning un-der the
Scheme formulated by the District Court, having
considerable public importance and registered
under the Bombay Public Trust Act, as a
religious charitable Trust. Considering its nature
and activities, emerging from the objects of the
Trust, it can be stated that disclosure of such
information is in relation to any public interest of
activity. The Trust is engaged, in public
activities, disclosure of its statements and
accounts of income-tax returns and assessments
orders cannot be withheld under Section 8(1)(c)
or (j) of the RTI. Act."
7.10. By relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court in Rajendra Vasantlal
Shah, he submits that in the said decision, the
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court considered whether
income tax returns filed by a religious
charitable trust could be withheld under the
exemptions contained in Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act on the ground of fiduciary relationship or
privacy. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held
that the filing of income tax returns by such a
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
trust, which was subject to statutory regulation
and audit under the Bombay Public Trust Act
and whose functioning was of considerable
public importance, could not be treated as
constituting a fiduciary relationship so as to
defeat the object of the RTI Act.
7.11. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court observed that a
public charitable trust, engaged in activities
affecting a significant section of the public and
operating under statutory control, cannot claim
immunity from disclosure of its financial
statements and assessment orders. In such
circumstances, disclosure of income tax returns
was held to be connected with public interest
and transparency in public functioning.
7.12. Learned counsel submits that the concept of
fiduciary relationship cannot be expansively
interpreted so as to shield all income tax
returns from disclosure under the RTI Act.
According to him, the mere fact that a return is
filed with the Income Tax Department does not,
by itself, create a blanket fiduciary protection.
7.13. It is therefore contended that the Income Tax
Department cannot mechanically invoke Section
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
8(1)(e) or 8(1)(j) in every case involving
income tax returns. Where the information
sought bears relevance to the enforcement of
legal rights and involves elements of public
interest or statutory obligations, disclosure may
be warranted. Learned counsel submits that the
Central Information Commission, having
considered these principles, rightly directed
disclosure in the present case.
7.14. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder
Kumar Sharma8, more particularly, para 16
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
"16. In Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney
(supra), this Court, while dealing with Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, directed both the
parties to file detailed affidavits of their assets,
income and expenditure. The relevant portion of
the said judgment is held as under:
7. ...both the parties are directed to file their
respective affidavits of assets, income and
expenditure from the date of the marriage up to
this date containing the following particulars:--
7.1 Personal Information
(i) Educational qualifications.
8
FAO 369/1996 dated 14.01.2015.
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
(ii) Professional qualifications.
(iii) Present occupation.
(iv) Particulars of past occupation,
(v) Members of the family.
(a) Dependent.
(b) Independent.
7.2 Income
(i) Salary, if in service.
(ii) Income from business/profession, if self
employed.
(iii) Particulars of all earnings since marriage.
(iv) Income from other sources:--
(a) Rent.
(b) Interest on bank deposits and FDRs.
(c) Other interest i.e. on loan, deposits, NSC,
IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF etc.
(d) Dividends.
(e) Income from machinery, plant or furniture let
on hire.
(f) Gifts and Donations.
(g) Profit on sale of movable/immovable assets.
(h) Any other income not covered above.
7.3 Assets
(i) Immovable properties:--
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
(a) Building in the name of self and its Fair
Market Value (FMV):--
- Residential.
- Commercial.
- Mortgage.
- Given on rent.
- Others.
(b) Plot/land.
(c) Leasehold property.
(d) Intangible property e.g. patents, trademark,
design, goodwill.
(e) Properties in the name of family
members/HUF and their FMV.
(ii) Movable properties:--
(a) Furniture and fixtures.
(b) Plant and Machinery.
(c) Livestock.
(d) Vehicles i.e. car, scooter along with their
brand and registration number.
(iii) Investments:--
(a) Bank Accounts - Current or Savings.
(b) Demat Accounts.
(c) Cash.
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
(d) FDRs, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes,
PPF etc.
(e) Stocks, shares, debentures, bonds, units and
mutual funds.
(f) LIC policy.
(g) Deposits with Government and Non-
Government entities.
(h) Loan given to friends, relatives and others.
(i) Telephone, mobile phone and their numbers.
(j) TV, Fridge, Air Conditioner, etc.
(k) Other household appliances.
(l) Computer, Laptop.
(m) Other electronic gadgets including I-pad etc.
(n) Gold, silver and diamond Jewellery.
(o) Silver Utensils.
(p) Capital in partnership firm, sole proprietorship
firm.
(q) Shares in the Company in which Director.
(r) Undivided share in HUF property.
(s) Booking of any plot, flat, membership in Co-
op. Group Housing Society.
(t) Other investments not covered by above
items.
(iv) Any other assets not covered above. 7.4
Liabilities
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
(i) OD, CC, Term Loan from bank and other
institutions.
(ii) Personal/business loan
(a) Secured.
(b) Unsecured.
(iii) Home loan.
(iv) Income Tax, Wealth Tax and Property Tax.
7.5 Expenditure
(i) Rent and maintenance including electricity,
water and gas.
(ii) Lease rental, if any asset taken on hire.
(iii) Installment of any house loan, car loan,
personal loan, business loan, etc.
(iv) Interest to bank or others.
(v) Education of children including tuition fee.
(vi) Conveyance including fuel, repair and
maintenance of vehicle. Also give the average
distance travelled every day.
(vii) Premium of LIC, Medi-claim, house and
vehicle policy.
(viii) Premium of ULIP, Mutual Fund.
(ix) Contribution to PPF, EPF, approved
superannuation fund.
(x) Mobile/landline phone bills.
(xi) Club subscription and usage, subscription to
news papers, periodicals, magazines, etc.
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
(xii) Internet charges/cable charges.
(xiii) Household expenses including kitchen,
clothing, etc.
(xiv) Salary of servants, gardener, watchmen,
etc.
(xv) Medical/hospitalisation expenses. (xvi)
Legal/litigation expenses.
(xvii) Expenditure on dependent family members.
(xviii) Expenditure on entertainment.
(xix) Expenditure on travel including
outstation/foreign travel, business as well as
personal. (xx) Expenditure on
construction/renovation and furnishing of
residence/office.
(xxi) Any other expenditure not covered above.
7.6 General Information regarding Standard of
Living and Lifestyle
(i) Status of family members.
(ii) Credit/debit cards.
(iii) Expenditure on marriage including marriage
of family members.
(iv) Expenditure on family functions including
birthday of the children.
(v) Expenditure on festivals.
(vi) Expenditure on extra-curricular activities.
(vii) Destination of honeymoon.
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
(viii) Frequency of travel including
outstation/foreign travel, business as well as
personal.
(ix) Mode of travel in city/outside city.
(x) Mode of outstation/foreign travel including
type of class.
(xi) Category of hotels used for stay, official as
well as personal, including type of rooms.
(xii) Category of hospitals opted for medical
treatment including type of rooms.
(xiii) Name of school(s) where the child or
children are studying.
(xiv) Brand of vehicle, mobile and wrist watch.
(xv) Value of jewellery worn.
(xvi) Details of residential accommodation. (xvii)
Value of gifts received.
(xviii) Value of gifts given at family functions.
(xix) Value of donations given.
(xx) Particulars of credit card/debit card, its limit
and usage.
(xxi) Average monthly withdrawal from bank.
(xxii) Type of restaurant visited for dining out.
(xxiii) Membership of clubs, societies and other
associations.
(xxiv) Brand of alcohol, if consumed.
(xxv) Particulars of all pending as well as decided
cases including civil, criminal, labour, income tax,
excise, property tax, MACT, etc. with parties
name.
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
8. Both the parties are also directed to file, along
with affidavit, copies of the documents relating to
their assets, income and expenditure from the
date of the marriage up to this date and more
particularly the following:--
(i) Relevant documents with respect to income
including Salary certificate, Form 16A, Income
Tax Returns, certificate from the employer
regarding cost to the company, balance sheet,
etc.
(ii) Audited accounts, if deponent is running
business and otherwise, non-audited accounts
i.e. balance sheets, profit and loss account and
capital account.
(iii) Statement of all bank accounts.
(iv) Statement of Demat accounts.
(v) Passport.
(vi) Credit cards.
(vii) Club membership cards.
(viii) Frequent Flyer cards.
(ix) PAN card.
(x) Applications seeking job, in case of
unemployed person.
9. The affidavit and documents be filed within a
period of four weeks with an advance copy to
opposite parties who shall file their response
within two weeks thereafter.
11. Both the parties are directed to remain
present in Court on the next date of hearing
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
along with all original documents relating to their
assets, income and expenditure."
7.15. By relying on Kusum Sharma's case, his
submission is that comprehensive directions
were issued mandating both parties in
matrimonial proceedings to file detailed
affidavits of their assets, income, expenditure,
liabilities, and standard of living, along with
supporting documentary evidence including
income tax returns, bank statements, audited
accounts, and related financial records.
7.16. Placing reliance on the said decision, learned
counsel submits that matrimonial litigation,
particularly proceedings concerning
maintenance, necessarily requires full and frank
disclosure of financial capacity by both spouses.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court recognised that
accurate adjudication of maintenance claims is
impossible without reliable material regarding
income and assets, and accordingly imposed an
obligation on parties to disclose detailed
financial information.
7.17. It is therefore contended that in matrimonial
disputes, there is a positive duty cast upon the
husband to disclose his true income and
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
financial position. Where such disclosure is
withheld, suppressed, or inadequately made,
the other spouse cannot be left remediless. In
such circumstances, it is submitted, the wife is
entitled to seek access to authentic financial
documents from the authority in lawful custody
of such records, including income tax returns
maintained by the Income Tax Department, for
the limited purpose of producing the same
before the competent court.
7.18. Learned counsel further submits that the
context of matrimonial proceedings
distinguishes the present case from ordinary
third-party requests under the RTI Act. The
information sought is not for public
dissemination, nor for general transparency in
governance, but for enforcement of statutory
and legal rights arising out of the matrimonial
relationship. The objective is to enable the
court to determine a just and fair maintenance.
7.19. It is therefore urged that when one spouse
seeks disclosure of income tax returns of the
other spouse in aid of maintenance
proceedings, such a request cannot be equated
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
with a demand for disclosure of purely private
information in the public domain. Rather, it is
an effort to secure relevant evidence for
adjudication of legal rights. In that view of the
matter, learned counsel submits that the
direction issued by the Central Information
Commission does not warrant interference.
7.20. He relies upon the decision of the Central
Information Commission in Neena Bhatnagar
Mani Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax9, more particularly, the extracts as under.
"The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI
application and stated that the desired information
was not provided, till date, despite the fact that
she was the legally wedded wife of the Third
Party. While referring to the decision of the
Division Bench of the High Court of MP in the
matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain
and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita
Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others
W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018, the
Appellant submitted that the legal position as
enunciated in the said judgement would prevail
over the decision of stay of the High Court of
Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 18778/2017 (GM-
RES) since the decision of High Court of Karnataka
was binding only on the parties contesting the
matter therein. In its reply, the Respondent re-
iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also
their written submission and contended that a
9
S.A.No.CIC/CCITB/A/2018/106268-BJ dated 18.6.2019
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
similar matter decided by the Commission was
challenged by them before the High Court of
Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 18778/2017 (GM-
RES) and the Court had passed an interim order
dated 28.04.2017 directing issue of notice to the
Respondents and in the meanwhile granted
interim stay. The Appellant while submitting that
she was not in receipt of the written submission of
the Respondent provided her e-mail id
([email protected]) to the Respondent
in order to forward the written submission to her
by email for her ready reference.
The Commission was in receipt of a written
submission from the Appellant dated 13.06.2019
wherein while explaining the background of the
matter it was stated that she was the legally
wedded wife of Mr. Bhaskar Mani since
23.02.1992 and had a right to be maintained by
her husband under the Hindu law which he was
refusing on the claim that he had no income
despite Court orders. She further explained that
she was married for 27 years and was now a
Senior Citizen with multiple serious illnesses and
was dependent on her married sisters for the last
11 years. Hence the information sought became
life related information necessary to live a life of
dignity, refusal of which would greatly perpetuate
her hardship. She further submitted that her
request for information fell within the ambit and
scope of the RTI Act since the protection of
privacy was overridden by the huge public interest
in preventing deserted wives from facing a life of
destitution and indignity as provided under the
Hindu Law and the proviso to Section 8 (1) (j).
While re-iterating her RTI application/ reply of the
CPIO/ First Appeal and the reply of the FAA, the
Appellant referred to several judgements to
submit that maintenance was not merely a legal
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
right but was part and parcel of basic human
right. Depending on the financial condition and
non-availability of support from parents, when
husband does not maintain a wife, it challenges
her right to live, and thus the information related
to maintenance became life related information.
In support of her contention, the Appellant relied
on the decision of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain
and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita
Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others
W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018, decision of
the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the
matter of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs.
Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of
2016 dated 22.10.2018, decisions of the
Commission in CIC/BS/A/2015/002182-BJ dated
11.05.2017 and CIC/BS/A/2015/002040-BJ dated
20.04.2017 and CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/175772 in
support of her contention. Thus, while stating that
since December, 2014 her husband had used one
ploy or another to not pay her maintenance due to
her under law and that arrears on the Court Order
exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs, the Appellant prayed to
set aside the order of the CPIO/ FAA (Jt.
Commissioner) and direct the CPIO/ SPIO to
provide her the information without further delay."
7.21. By relying on Neena Bhatnagar Mani's case,
his submission is that in the said case, the
Commission was dealing with a similar situation
where the legally wedded wife had sought
disclosure of the income tax returns of her
husband for the purpose of enforcing her claim
for maintenance. The applicant therein had
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
contended that despite subsisting matrimonial
obligations and court orders, the husband had
refused to maintain her, asserting lack of
income, while withholding authentic financial
particulars.
7.22. The Commission, in that context, considered
the plea that maintenance is not merely a
statutory entitlement but forms an integral
component of the right to live with dignity. It
was urged before the Commission that denial of
financial support, particularly where the wife
was dependent and without independent
means, directly impacted her right to livelihood
and survival.
7.23. Learned counsel submits that the Commission
in the said case examined the interplay
between the right to privacy and the concept of
larger public interest under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act. It was observed that in
circumstances where a deserted wife is
deprived of financial support and is unable to
substantiate her claim due to non-disclosure of
income details by the husband, the balance
may tilt in favour of disclosure, as the
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
information becomes intrinsically connected
with her right to life and dignity.
7.24. Learned counsel submits that maintenance
cannot be viewed as a mere private dispute
devoid of public interest. The obligation of a
husband to maintain his wife is recognised
under personal laws and statutory enactments.
When such an obligation is evaded and the wife
is rendered financially vulnerable, denial of
access to income-related information would
perpetuate hardship and undermine her
fundamental rights.
7.25. It is therefore contended that income tax
returns, in such a context, assume the
character of life-related information, as they
directly enable the court to determine
appropriate maintenance. The disclosure sought
is not for public circulation but for the
enforcement of lawful rights before a
competent court. Accordingly, it is submitted
that the Central Information Commission rightly
appreciated these considerations and allowed
the request, and the writ petition deserves to
be dismissed.
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
7.26. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt.Sunita
Jain Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,10 more
particularly, paras 10, 11 and 12 thereof, which
are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"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.
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.
Present case is distinguishable from the case of
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and
therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in
the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande
(supra) are not applicable in the present case.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the
appeal and set aside the order passed by the
Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the
W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the
impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is
set aside."
10
W.A.No.170/2015 dated 15.05.2018
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
7.27. By relying on Sunita Jain's case, he submits
that in the said case, the issue concerned the
disclosure of the monthly remuneration of a
husband employed with a public authority. The
Ho'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court observed
that while considering the exemption under
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the marital
relationship between the parties could not be
ignored. The Court held that a wife is entitled to
know the remuneration earned by her husband,
especially when such information is relevant for
enforcement of her legal rights.
7.28. The High Court further distinguished the
decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande,
holding that the facts therein were materially
different and that the ratio of that case would
not automatically apply in a matrimonial
context where financial disclosure is directly
connected with maintenance and legal
entitlements.
7.29. On the basis of the said judgment, learned
counsel submits that where a public authority is
statutorily obliged under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of
the RTI Act to disclose the monthly
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
remuneration of its officers and employees,
such information cannot be shielded under the
guise of personal privacy under Section 8(1)(j).
Transparency in respect of income earned from
public employment carries a distinct character.
7.30. It is therefore contended that if salary details of
a public servant cannot be withheld from a
spouse under Section 8(1)(j), a similar
approach should inform the interpretation of
disclosure obligations where the financial
capacity of a husband is directly in issue in
maintenance proceedings. Learned counsel
submits that the exemption provision cannot be
applied mechanically so as to defeat
substantive legal rights of a spouse seeking
maintenance.
7.31. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in Rajesh Ramchandra
Kidile Vs. Maharastra SIC and others11,
more particularly, paras 7 and 8 thereof, which
are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"7. I would have accepted the contention of the
learned counsel for the respondent No.3 had the
application been filed on behalf of his estranged
11
WP No.1766/2016 dated 22.10.2018
- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
wife of the Petitioner. A plain reading of this
application, a copy of which is available at Page
16, would show that the application has been
filed in his own capacity by the Advocate and not
on behalf of his client and so, the argument is
rejected. It would be necessary now to consider
the nature of information sought by this
application.
8. Perusal of this application shows that the
salary slips for the period mentioned in the
application have been sought for by the
Advocate. As rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner, the salary slips contain
such details as deductions made from the salary,
remittances made to the Bank by way of loan
installments, remittances made to the Income
Tax Authority towards part payment of the
Income Tax for the concerned month and other
details relating to contributions made to
Provident Fund etc. It is here that the information
contained in the salary slips would make the
salary slips as having the characteristic of
personal nature. Any information which discloses,
as for example, remittances made to the Income
Tax Department towards discharge of tax liability
or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability
would constitute the personal information and
would encroach upon the privacy of the person.
Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande
(supra), such an information could not be
disclosed under the provisions of the RI Act. This
is all the more so when the information seeker is
a person who is totally stranger in blood or
marital relationship to the person whose
information he wants to lay his hands on. It
would have been a different matter, had the
information been sought by the wife of the
- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
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."
7.32. By relying on Rajesh Ramchandra Kidile's, it
is submitted that in the said case, the High
Court was considering a request for salary slips
of an employee. The Court noted that salary
slips ordinarily contain details such as
deductions towards income tax, loan
repayments, provident fund contributions, and
other financial particulars which partake the
character of personal information. On that
basis, and applying the ratio of Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande, the Court held that
such information could not ordinarily be
disclosed under the RTI Act when sought by a
stranger.
- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
7.33. However, learned counsel draws specific
attention to the significant observation made by
the High Court that the matter would stand on
a different footing if the information were
sought by the wife in aid of litigation concerning
maintenance. The Court expressly observed
that in such circumstances, the information
relating to salary details would no longer
remain confined to the personal sphere of the
husband alone but would assume relevance to
both spouses, particularly when the issue of
maintenance is directly in question.
7.34. Learned counsel submits that the present case
squarely falls within the category contemplated
by the Bombay High Court. Here, the applicant
is not a stranger but the legally wedded wife,
and the information is sought for the limited
purpose of substantiating her claim in pending
matrimonial proceedings. The financial capacity
of the husband being directly in issue, the
information assumes shared relevance rather
than remaining exclusively personal.
7.35. It is therefore contended that the observations
in Rajesh Ramchandra Kidile fortify the
- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
stand of Respondent No.1 that disclosure in
matrimonial litigation stands on a distinct
footing and that the Central Information
Commission rightly appreciated this distinction
while directing disclosure.
7.36. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande Vs. Central Information
Commissioner and others12, more
particularly, paras 2 and 13 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"2. We are, in this case, concerned with the
question whether the Central Information
Commissioner (for short 'the CIC') acting under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the
RTI Act') was right in denying information
regarding the third respondent's personal matters
pertaining to his service career and also denying
the details of his assets and liabilities, movable
and immovable properties on the ground that the
information sought for was qualified to be
personal information as defined in clause (j) of
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the
courts below that the details called for by the
Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the
third respondent, show cause notices and orders
of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be
personal information as defined in clause (j) of
12
SLP(C).No.27734/2012
- 68 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of
an employee/officer in an organisation is
primarily a matter between the employee and the
employer and normally those aspects are
governed by the service rules which fall under the
expression "personal information", the disclosure
of which has no relationship to any public activity
or public interest. On the other hand, the
disclosure of which would cause unwarranted
invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course,
in a given case, if the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer of
the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information, appropriate orders could be passed
but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a
matter of right."
7.37. By relying on Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande's case, it is submitted that in the
said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
concerned with whether service-related records
and asset declarations of a public servant
constituted "personal information" within the
meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such
information ordinarily falls within the protected
category of personal information and cannot be
disclosed as a matter of right unless larger
public interest justifies disclosure.
- 69 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
7.38. However, learned counsel emphasises that
even in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court expressly recognised
that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is not
absolute. The Public Information Officer or the
Appellate Authority is vested with discretion to
order disclosure if satisfied that larger public
interest warrants it. Thus, the statute
contemplates a case-specific evaluation rather
than a blanket prohibition.
7.39. On that basis, it is submitted that in the
present case, the Public Information Officer was
required to examine whether the request of the
wife, made in the context of pending
maintenance proceedings, constituted a
circumstance warranting disclosure. According
to learned counsel, when a legally wedded wife
seeks financial information to substantiate her
claim for maintenance, an entitlement
recognised under statutory and personal laws,
the matter transcends a mere private curiosity
and implicates her right to livelihood and
dignity.
- 70 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
7.40. It is therefore contended that the Public
Information Officer ought to have exercised his
statutory discretion in a purposive manner,
balancing privacy with the need to prevent
injustice. The request, being directly connected
to the enforcement of maintenance rights,
could legitimately be regarded as falling within
the ambit of "larger public interest" in ensuring
that deserted spouses are not left remediless.
Learned counsel submits that the Central
Information Commission appreciated this
dimension and that no error can be attributed
to its decision directing disclosure.
7.41. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs.
Administrative Officer and Others13, more
particularly, para 6 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined
under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form,
including records, documents, memos, e-mails,
opinions, advices, press releases, circulars,
orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers,
samples, models, data material held in any
electronic form and information relating to any
13
SLP No.34868/2009
- 71 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any other law for the time being
in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under
Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information
which is already in existence and accessible to the
public authority under law. Of course, under the
RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the
opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he
cannot ask for any information as to why such
opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been
passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial
decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments
or orders passed by him. If any party feels
aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a
judge, the remedy available to such a party is
either to challenge the same by way of appeal or
by revision or any other legally permissible mode.
No litigant can be allowed to seek information as
to why and for what reasons the judge had come
to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is
not bound to explain later on for what reasons he
had come to such a conclusion."
7.42. By relying on Khanapuram Gandaiah, it is
submitted that in the said decision, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court clarified the scope of the
expression "information" under Section 2(f) of
the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that an applicant is entitled to seek material
that is already in existence and accessible to a
public authority under law. However, the Act
does not permit a person to seek explanations,
reasons, or justifications for judicial decisions,
- 72 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
as a judge speaks only through his or her
orders and judgments.
7.43. Placing reliance on the said principle, learned
counsel submits that the information sought in
the present case squarely falls within the
statutory definition of "information." Income tax
returns, assessment records, and related
documents are existing records held by a public
authority in material form. The request is not
for any opinion, reasoning, clarification, or
explanation; rather, it is for copies of
documents already available in the custody of
the Department.
7.44. It is therefore contended that the objection
raised by the Petitioner cannot be sustained on
the ground that the request falls outside the
definition of "information." The documents
sought are tangible records within the meaning
of Section 2(f), and hence, subject to the
exemptions provided under Section 8, they are
amenable to disclosure.
7.45. Learned counsel submits that once it is
accepted that the material sought constitutes
"information" under the Act, the only question
- 73 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
that remains is whether any valid exemption
applies. In the present case, it is urged that the
Central Information Commission, having
examined the statutory scheme and the
peculiar matrimonial context, rightly directed
disclosure.
7.46. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1, by
adverting to the definition of "information"
under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, submits that
the expression is of wide amplitude. It
encompasses any material in any form,
including records, documents, memos, e-mails,
opinions, advices and the like, and also extends
to information relating to a private body which
can be accessed by a public authority under
any other law for the time being in force.
7.47. On that basis, it is contended that although the
husband of Respondent No.1 is a private
individual and not a public authority, the
income tax returns and related financial records
pertaining to him are in the lawful custody of
the Income Tax Department. The Department,
being a public authority within the meaning of
- 74 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
the RTI Act, has statutory access and control
over such material.
7.48. Learned counsel therefore submits that once
such information is held by, or accessible to, a
public authority, it falls within the sweep of
Section 2(f) and becomes amenable to a
request under the RTI Act, subject of course to
the statutory exemptions. The fact that the
information concerns a private individual does
not, by itself, place it beyond the reach of the
Act.
7.49. Accordingly, it is urged that the request made
by Respondent No.1 for copies of the income
tax returns of her husband was maintainable
under the RTI Act, and the Central Information
Commission was justified in entertaining and
allowing the appeal.
7.50. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 reiterates
that in proceedings relating to maintenance,
determination of the husband's actual income is
central to a just adjudication. The quantum of
maintenance necessarily depends upon verified
financial particulars such as income, assets,
liabilities and overall financial capacity. Without
- 75 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
reliable documentary evidence, the court is
constrained to proceed on approximations,
often to the prejudice of the claimant spouse.
7.51. It is submitted that in the present case, the
husband has not voluntarily produced his
income tax returns or authentic financial
records despite the pendency of proceedings. In
such circumstances, Respondent No.1 is left
without any effective means of establishing the
true income of her husband. According to
learned counsel, the RTI Act provides the only
viable statutory mechanism through which she
can access certified records already available
with the Income Tax Department.
7.52. On the cumulative strength of the judicial
precedents relied upon, it is contended that
where financial disclosure is necessary to
enforce maintenance rights, the balance
between privacy and public interest must be
struck in a manner that advances substantive
justice. The information sought, namely income
tax returns, assessment particulars and related
banking details, is directly relevant to the
pending proceedings and is not sought for
- 76 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
public dissemination but for limited production
before the competent court.
7.53. It is therefore submitted that, given the
estranged relationship between the parties, the
non-cooperation of the husband, and the
absence of any alternative mode of obtaining
authentic financial information, the Central
Information Commission acted in the interest of
justice in directing disclosure. Learned counsel
urges that no interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution is warranted and that the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Sri Y.V.Ravi Raj, leaned counsel for the Petitioner, in
rejoinder, would submit that
8.1. The stand of the Income Tax Department has
been misunderstood. It is not the case of the
Department that income tax returns or related
records can never be produced.
8.2. The objection, according to him, is only to the
mode by which such information is sought to be
obtained. Learned counsel submits that
confidential tax information cannot be furnished
merely on the basis of an RTI application filed
- 77 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
by the spouse of the assessee. The statutory
framework governing income tax records
contemplates regulated disclosure and vests
discretion in specified authorities or in courts of
competent jurisdiction. It is contended that if a
competent court, in the course of maintenance,
matrimonial proceedings or the like, considers it
necessary to summon the income tax returns of
the husband, the Department would be bound
to comply with such judicial direction. In that
scenario, the court would exercise its
discretion, evaluate relevance and necessity,
and pass appropriate orders for the production
of documents.
8.3. Therefore, the submission is that the proper
course for Respondent No.1 is to invoke the
procedural mechanisms available before the
concerned court for summoning documents,
rather than resorting to the RTI Act. According
to learned counsel, permitting disclosure
through RTI would bypass judicial scrutiny and
dilute the statutory safeguards attached to
confidential tax records.
- 78 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
8.4. On this premise, it is reiterated that the
impugned order of the Central Information
Commission is liable to be set aside.
9. Heard Sri Y.V.Raviraj, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for
respondent No.1, Sri Shanthi Bhushan, learned DSGI
for respondent No.2 and perused papers.
10. The points that would arise for consideration are:
i. Whether the income tax returns,
assessment particulars and related
financial details of an assessee
constitute "personal information" under
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, and/or
information held in a fiduciary capacity
under Section 8(1)(e) of the said Act?
ii. Whether the husband of Respondent
No.1 qualifies as a "third party" within
the meaning of Section 2(n) of the RTI
Act in the context of the RTI application
filed by his spouse, and whether the
matrimonial relationship has any legal
bearing on that characterisation?
iii. Whether the disclosure sought by
Respondent No.1, in connection with
her claim for maintenance in pending
matrimonial proceedings, satisfies the
test of "larger public interest" so as to
override the exemptions under Section
8 of the RTI Act?
- 79 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
iv. Whether Section 138 of the Income-tax
Act, 1961, being a special provision
governing disclosure of assessee
information, restricts or regulates
disclosure under the RTI Act, and how
it is to be harmoniously construed with
Section 22 of the RTI Act?
v. Whether, in the facts of the present
case, the appropriate course for
Respondent No.1 was to seek
production of the income tax returns
through the competent matrimonial
court, rather than by invoking the
provisions of the RTI Act?
vi. Whether the order dated 12.04.2019
passed by the Central Information
Commission directing disclosure of the
information calls for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
vii. What order?
11. I answer the above points as follows:
12. Answer to Point No. (i): Whether the income
tax returns, assessment particulars and related
financial details of an assessee constitute
"personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005, and/or
information held in a fiduciary capacity under
Section 8(1)(e) of the said Act?
12.1. Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, contends that the information sought
by Respondent No.1, namely the income tax
- 80 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
returns, assessment particulars and financial
disclosures of the assessee, squarely falls
within the protective ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is
submitted that such material constitutes
personal information, the disclosure of which
has no relationship to any public activity or
public interest and would amount to an
unwarranted invasion of privacy. The right to
information, though recognised under the RTI
Act, is not absolute and must be balanced
against the constitutional right to privacy.
Section 8(1)(j) embodies this legislative
balance by carving out an exemption where
personal information is sought without a
demonstrable larger public interest.
12.2. Learned counsel further submits that the
Income Tax Department holds the income tax
returns and financial particulars of an assessee
in a fiduciary capacity. Just as asset
declarations made by Judges were argued in
Subhash Chandra Agarwal's case to be held
in confidence by the Chief Justice of India, the
income tax returns furnished by an assessee
are submitted to the Department under
- 81 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
statutory compulsion with an expectation of
confidentiality. It is therefore contended that
such information is held in a fiduciary capacity
and attracts the exemption under Section
8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
12.3. In support of his contention, learned counsel
relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Subhash Chandra Agarwal, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the scope
of fiduciary obligations under Section 8(1)(e)
and the nature of confidentiality attached to
asset declarations. The Court emphasised the
need to balance the statutory scheme of the
RTI Act with the constitutional right to privacy
under Part III of the Constitution.
12.4. Learned counsel further relies upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditya
Bandopadhyay, where the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that while the RTI Act is a
potent tool to combat corruption and ensure
transparency, equal importance must be
accorded to other public interests such as
confidentiality of sensitive information,
- 82 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
protection of fiduciary relationships, and
efficient functioning of public authorities.
12.5. Learned counsel also relies upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande, where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court categorically held that details
disclosed by a person in his income tax returns
are personal information which stand exempted
from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1)
of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is
established and the competent authority is
satisfied that disclosure is warranted.
12.6. Reliance is also placed on the decision in
Shailesh Gandhi, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court examined the scope of the proviso
to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and held that
the exemptions carved out under clause (j) of
sub-section (1) of Section 8 are substantive
protections and must be given full effect.
12.7. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Aurangabad
Bench, in Adarsh, where the Court examined
the scope and interplay of Sections 8 and 11 of
the RTI Act and held that where personal
- 83 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
information is sought and there is no larger
public interest, the exemption under Section
8(1)(j) operates as a bar to disclosure. The
Court observed that income tax/GST returns
are protected from disclosure in the absence of
a larger public interest.
12.8. Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1, submits that the concept of fiduciary
relationship cannot be expansively interpreted
so as to shield all income tax returns from
disclosure under the RTI Act. The mere fact
that a return is filed with the Income Tax
Department does not, by itself, create a blanket
fiduciary protection.
12.9. In support of this contention, learned counsel
relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat
High Court in Rajendra Vasantlal Shah,
wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held
that filing of income tax returns by a
public/charitable trust, which was subject to
statutory regulation, could not be treated as
constituting a fiduciary relationship so as to
defeat the object of the RTI Act. The Court held
that disclosure of income tax returns was
- 84 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
connected with public interest and transparency
in public functioning.
12.10. Learned counsel further relies upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khanapuram
Gandaiah, to submit that income tax returns
are existing records held by a public authority
in material form and fall within the statutory
definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of
the RTI Act. The request is not for any opinion,
reasoning, or explanation but for copies of
documents already available in the custody of
the Department.
12.11. It is further submitted by learned counsel for
Respondent No.1 that even under the decision
in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court expressly recognised
that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is not
absolute. The Public Information Officer or the
Appellate Authority is vested with discretion to
order disclosure if satisfied that larger public
interest warrants it. Thus, the statute
contemplates a case-specific evaluation rather
than a blanket prohibition.
- 85 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
12.12. I have considered the submissions advanced by
both sides on this point and have perused the
relevant statutory provisions and the judgments
cited.
12.13. At the outset, it is necessary to extract the
relevant statutory provisions. Section 8(1)(e) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as
follows:
"8(1)(e) information available to a person in his
fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is
satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information;"
12.14. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act reads as follows:
"8(1)(j) information which relates to personal
information the disclosure of which has no relationship
to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as
the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to
the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied
to any person."
12.15. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions
reveals that the legislature has carved out two
distinct but overlapping protections: one
- 86 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
relating to information held in a fiduciary
relationship under clause (e), and the other
relating to personal information under clause
(j). Both exemptions are qualified, in that they
may be overridden where a larger public
interest warrants disclosure. Neither exemption
is absolute in character.
12.16. Dealing first with the question whether income
tax returns constitute "personal information"
under Section 8(1)(j), the position stands
authoritatively settled by the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande in paragraph 14 of the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically held:
14. The details disclosed by a person in his
income tax returns are personal information
which stand exempted from disclosure under
clause (i) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless
involves a larger public interest and the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure of such information."
12.17. This pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is binding on all courts and tribunals in
India and admits of no ambiguity. Income tax
- 87 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
returns, by their very nature, contain intimate
details of an individual's financial affairs,
sources of income, deductions claimed,
investments made, and tax liabilities
discharged. Such information is quintessentially
personal in character. The filing of such returns
is a statutory compulsion under the Income-tax
Act, 1961, and the assessee furnishes such
details with a reasonable expectation that the
same will be used solely for the purposes of tax
administration and will not be disclosed to third
parties without lawful authority.
12.18. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Aditya Bandopadhyay, reinforces this
position. In paragraph 66 thereof, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that while the RTI Act
is a powerful instrument to fight corruption and
bring transparency, equal importance and
emphasis are given to other public interests
such as "confidentiality of sensitive information,
fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient
operation of Governments, etc." This
observation underscores the legislative intent
that the RTI Act does not contemplate
unrestricted access to all information held by
- 88 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
public authorities. The exemptions under
Section 8 are not mere procedural hurdles but
reflect substantive policy choices made by
Parliament to protect competing interests.
12.19. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Subhash Chandra Agarwal, is also
instructive. While the said judgment primarily
dealt with the question of disclosure of asset
declarations of Judges, the Constitution Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extensively
analysed the scope of Section 8(1)(j) in the
context of the right to privacy. In paragraph
251, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised
that in interpreting the statutory scheme of the
RTI Act, the constitutional right to know and
the constitutional right to privacy of citizens are
both implicated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the question of disclosure must be
determined by analysing the scheme of the RTI
Act, the role of the exemptions under Section 8,
and the interface between the statutory rights
and duties under Section 8(1)(j) and the
constitutional rights under Part III of the
Constitution.
- 89 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
12.20. The decision in Shailesh Gandhi is also
apposite. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in
paragraph 25, rejected the contention that the
proviso to Section 8(1)(j) could be so widely
interpreted as to override the main exemption
provision. The Court held that the exemptions
under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8
are substantive protections that must be given
full effect. Personal information, particularly
financial information such as income tax
returns, remains protected unless the statutory
requirement of larger public interest is clearly
satisfied.
12.21. The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court,
Aurangabad Bench, in Adarsh, is also relevant.
The Court examined the scope and interplay of
Sections 8 and 11 of the RTI Act and held that
where personal information is sought, the
procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act is
mandatory. In respect of GST returns, which
are analogous to income tax returns, the Court
held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j)
operates as a bar to disclosure in the absence
of a larger public interest. The Court specifically
noted that Section 158(1) of the GST Act
- 90 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
prohibits giving information of GST returns
except as provided in sub-section (3).
12.22. Turning now to Section 8(1)(e) and the
question of fiduciary relationship, the concept
of "fiduciary relationship" under the RTI Act has
been the subject of considerable judicial
analysis. The expression, in the context of
Section 8(1)(e), has been interpreted to mean
a relationship founded on trust and confidence,
wherein one party holds information on behalf
of another with an obligation of confidentiality.
12.23. In Subhash Chandra Agarwal's case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court examined whether the
Chief Justice of India held asset declarations of
Judges in a fiduciary capacity. The Court
analysed the nature of the relationship and the
circumstances under which information was
furnished. While the Hon'ble Supreme Court did
not accept that a fiduciary relationship existed
in that specific context between the Chief
Justice and the Judges, the Court recognised
that the concept of a fiduciary relationship is
fact-dependent and must be assessed in each
case.
- 91 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
12.24. The decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
in Rajendra Vasantlal Shah relied upon by
learned counsel for Respondent No.1, must be
understood in its proper context. In that case,
the information sought related to the accounts
of a religious charitable trust, which was
subject to statutory audit and regulation under
the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Court held
that the filing of income tax returns by such a
trust could not be treated as constituting a
fiduciary relationship. However, the said
judgment dealt with a public charitable trust,
not with the income tax returns of a private
individual. The distinction is material. A public
trust, by its very nature, carries public
accountability, and its financial affairs are
subject to statutory scrutiny. The position of a
private individual who files income tax returns
in compliance with the Income-tax Act stands
on an entirely different footing.
12.25. I'am therefore of the view that the relationship
between the Income Tax Department and an
individual assessee does partake of the nature
of a fiduciary relationship to the extent that the
assessee furnishes detailed personal financial
- 92 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
information under statutory compulsion with a
reasonable expectation that the same will be
utilised solely for the purposes of tax
administration. The Department receives and
retains such information in a position of trust.
However, this Court recognises that the
characterisation of this relationship as
"fiduciary" in the strict legal sense has not been
conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The decision in Subhash Chandra
Agarwal's case shows that the concept of
fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e) is
to be applied with circumspection and on a
case-by-case basis.
12.26. Be that as it may, even if the relationship
between the Department and the assessee is
not characterised as strictly fiduciary, it is
beyond any doubt that income tax returns
constitute "personal information" within the
meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This
is the authoritative pronouncement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande and this Court is bound by the
same. The fact that such information is
personal in nature does not, however, mean
- 93 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
that it can never be disclosed. The exemption
under Section 8(1)(j) is qualified by the
condition that disclosure may be ordered where
the competent authority is satisfied that a
larger public interest warrants it. The question
whether such a larger public interest exists in
the present case is dealt with under Point (iii)
below.
12.27. I answer point No. (i) by holding that the
Income tax returns, assessment particulars and
related financial details of an assessee do
constitute "personal information" within the
meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, as authoritatively held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande. The exemption,
however, is qualified and not absolute; it may
be overridden where a larger public interest
warrants disclosure. As regards Section 8(1)(e),
while the relationship between the Income Tax
Department and an individual assessee
partakes of the nature of a fiduciary
relationship to a considerable extent, it is not
necessary to render a conclusive finding on this
point, inasmuch as the protection under Section
- 94 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
8(1)(j) is sufficiently broad to encompass the
information sought in the present case.
13. Answer to Point No. (ii): Whether the husband
of Respondent No.1 qualifies as a "third party"
within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the RTI
Act in the context of the RTI application filed by
his spouse, and whether the matrimonial
relationship has any legal bearing on that
characterisation?
13.1. Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, submits that the husband, being an
assessee under the Income-tax regime,
squarely answers the description of a "third
party" within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the
RTI Act, which defines "third party" to mean a
person other than the citizen making the
request for information. Since the applicant is
Respondent No.1 and the information sought
pertains to her husband, the husband must
necessarily be treated as a third party for the
purposes of the Act. It is further contended that
the mere fact that the applicant is the spouse of
the assessee does not dilute the confidentiality
attached to income tax returns.
13.2. Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1, submits that Respondent No.1 is the
- 95 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
legally wedded wife of Sri Zafar Ali. In that view
of the matter, it is contended that the husband
cannot be treated as a "third party" vis-a-vis
his wife in a strict or adversarial sense,
particularly when the information sought
pertains to issues directly impacting her legal
rights. The relationship between the parties,
being matrimonial, carries with it reciprocal
obligations, including financial disclosure in
appropriate proceedings.
13.3. In support of this contention, learned counsel
relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in Kusum Sharma, wherein
comprehensive directions were issued
mandating both parties in matrimonial
proceedings to file detailed affidavits of their
assets, income, expenditure, liabilities and
standard of living, along with supporting
documentary evidence including income tax
returns, bank statements, audited accounts and
related financial records.
13.4. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the
Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt.
Sunita Jain, where the Court observed that in
- 96 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
considering the exemption under Section
8(1)(j), the matrimonial relationship between
the parties could not be ignored. The Court held
that a wife is entitled to know the remuneration
earned by her husband and distinguished the
decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande
on the ground that the facts were materially
different in a matrimonial context.
13.5. I have considered the rival submissions with
care. At the outset, it is necessary to extract
the statutory definition of "third party" under
the RTI Act. Section 2(n) reads as follows:
"2(n) 'third party' means a person other than
the citizen making a request for information
and includes a public authority;"
13.6. The statutory definition is plain and
unambiguous. A "third party" means any
person other than the citizen making the
request. The definition does not carve out any
exception for spouses, family members, or
persons standing in any particular relationship
with the applicant. The language is
comprehensive and admits of no qualification
based on personal or familial relationship.
- 97 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
13.7. In the present case, the RTI application was
filed by Respondent No.1, namely Smt.
Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari. The
information sought pertains to the income tax
returns of her husband, Sri Zafar Ali Ansari.
Since the husband is a person other than the
citizen making the request, he squarely falls
within the definition of "third party" under
Section 2(n). The statutory text leaves no room
for a different interpretation.
13.8. The submission of learned counsel for
Respondent No.1 that the husband should not
be treated as a "third party" vis-a-vis his wife is
an argument that has emotional appeal but
finds no support in the statutory language. The
legislature, while enacting the RTI Act, could
have excluded spouses or certain categories of
family members from the definition of "third
party" but chose not to do so. This Court
cannot read into the statute a limitation that
the legislature did not enact.
13.9. That said, while the husband is undoubtedly a
"third party" within the meaning of Section
2(n), the consequence of such characterisation
- 98 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
is not that the information can never be
disclosed. The characterisation as a "third
party" triggers the procedural requirements
under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which
mandates that the Public Information Officer
shall, before disclosing third-party information,
issue notice to the concerned third party and
consider any submission or objection made by
that party. The procedure under Section 11 is
mandatory, as held in Adarsh.
13.10. The question whether the matrimonial
relationship has any legal bearing on the
characterisation as a "third party" must be
answered in the negative insofar as the
definitional aspect is concerned. The definition
under Section 2(n) does not admit of any
qualification. However, the matrimonial
relationship may have a bearing on a different
question altogether, namely, whether the
disclosure is warranted in the larger public
interest under Section 8(1)(j).
13.11. The relationship between the parties and the
context in which the information is sought may
be relevant factors in assessing whether the
- 99 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
larger public interest test is satisfied. This
aspect is addressed under Point (iii).
13.12. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
Kusum Sharma, relied upon by learned
counsel for Respondent No.1, does not advance
the case on the specific question of "third
party" characterisation. That decision
concerned the power of the matrimonial court
to direct parties to file affidavits of assets and
income. The directions issued therein were in
the exercise of the court's jurisdiction in
matrimonial proceedings, not in the context of
an RTI application. The judgment recognises
the duty of spouses to disclose financial
information in matrimonial proceedings, but it
does not deal with the question, whether a
spouse ceases to be a "third party" under the
RTI Act.
13.13. Similarly, the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sunita Jain, while
recognising the entitlement of a wife to know
the remuneration of her husband, distinguished
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande on the facts.
The said decision did not hold that a spouse is
- 100 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
not a "third party" under Section 2(n). Rather,
it held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j)
must be applied contextually and that in a
matrimonial context, the balance may tilt in
favour of disclosure. This is a separate question
from the definitional one under consideration.
13.14. I answer Point No.(ii) by holding that the
husband of Respondent No.1 does qualify as a
"third party" within the meaning of Section 2(n)
of the RTI Act. The statutory definition is
unambiguous and does not admit of any
exception based on matrimonial or familial
relationship. However, while the
characterisation as a "third party" triggers the
procedural requirements under Section 11 of
the RTI Act, the matrimonial relationship may
have a bearing on the assessment of whether
larger public interest warrants disclosure under
Section 8(1)(j). The marital relationship does
not alter the statutory characterisation but may
be a relevant factor in the overall evaluation of
the competing interests.
14. Answer to Point No. (iii): Whether the
disclosure sought by Respondent No.1, in
- 101 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
connection with her claim for maintenance in
pending matrimonial proceedings, satisfies the
test of "larger public interest" so as to override
the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act?
14.1. Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, contends that the disclosure sought
does not satisfy the test of "larger public
interest" within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j)
of the RTI Act. It is submitted that the concept
of public interest must transcend individual
disputes and relate to transparency in public
functioning or accountability in governance. The
request emanates from a private matrimonial
dispute and does not subserve any broader
public cause. The right to information is
essentially a right to seek information regarding
the functioning, actions and decisions of public
authorities and public functionaries, and not a
mechanism to access private personal
information of individuals which happens to be
in the custody of a public authority.
14.2. In support of this submission, reliance is placed
on Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, where
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that while
the RTI Act is intended to promote
transparency, equal importance is to be given
- 102 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
to competing interests including confidentiality
and fiduciary relationships. Reliance is also
placed on Girish Ramchandra Deshpande,
which held that income tax returns are personal
information exempted from disclosure unless
larger public interest is established.
14.3. Reliance is further placed on Shailesh Gandhi,
where the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that
the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) cannot be
interpreted so widely as to render the main
exemption provision otiose.
14.4. Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1, contends that the disclosure sought
satisfies the test of larger public interest. It is
submitted that Respondent No.1 is the legally
wedded wife who has instituted proceedings
under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The
husband, despite carrying on business, has
neither disclosed his turnover nor produced
relevant income tax returns. The Courts below
have rejected her claim for enhanced
maintenance on the ground that no
documentary evidence of the husband's income
- 103 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
was produced. Thus, denial of the information
would effectively defeat her statutory right to
seek appropriate maintenance.
14.5. Learned counsel submits that maintenance is
not merely a legal right but forms an integral
component of the right to live with dignity.
Where a deserted wife is deprived of financial
support and is unable to substantiate her claim
due to non-disclosure of income details by the
husband, the balance must tilt in favour of
disclosure, as the information becomes
intrinsically connected with her right to life and
dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
14.6. In support of this submission, learned counsel
relies upon the decision of the Central
Information Commission in Neena Bhatnagar
Mani, wherein the Commission was dealing
with a similar situation where the legally
wedded wife had sought disclosure of the
income tax returns of her husband for the
purpose of enforcing her claim for maintenance.
The Commission observed that in
circumstances where a deserted wife is
deprived of financial support, the balance may
- 104 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
tilt in favour of disclosure, as the information
becomes intrinsically connected with her right
to life and dignity.
14.7. Reliance is also placed on Rajesh
Ramchandra Kidile, where the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court observed that 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
concerning maintenance. The Court expressly
observed that in maintenance litigation,
information relating to salary details no longer
remains confined to the personal sphere of the
husband alone but assumes relevance to both
spouses.
14.8. Reliance is further placed on Smt. Sunita Jain,
where the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
held that a wife is entitled to know the
remuneration earned by her husband and that
the decision in Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande was distinguishable in a
matrimonial context.
14.9. I have given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions on this crucial point. The concept
- 105 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
of "larger public interest" under Section 8(1)(j)
of the RTI Act is not defined in the statute.
However, it has been the subject of judicial
interpretation in several authoritative decisions.
The expression implies an interest that
transcends the private or personal interest of
the individual applicant and concerns the
welfare, rights or interests of the public or a
significant section thereof.
14.10. At the outset, it must be recognised that there
are two competing constitutional values at play.
On the one hand, there is the right to privacy,
which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India14 (a decision
not cited by either side but which forms the
constitutional backdrop) has recognised as a
fundamental right under Article 21. On the
other hand, there is the right to life and dignity,
also guaranteed under Article 21, which
encompasses the right of a spouse to seek
appropriate maintenance and the right to live
with dignity.
14
(2017) 10 SCC 1
- 106 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
14.11. The facts of the present case reveal that
Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of
Sri Zafar Ali Ansari. She had filed proceedings
under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said
proceedings, her claim for maintenance at
Rs.75,000/- per month was rejected and she
was awarded only Rs.7,000/- per month,
principally because there was no specific
evidence regarding the earnings of the
husband. The appellate court in Criminal Appeal
No.303/2017 also declined enhancement on the
same ground. Even this modest amount was
not regularly paid, resulting in issuance of
recovery-cum-arrest warrants.
14.12. The question, therefore, is whether the need to
secure just maintenance for a deserted wife
constitutes "larger public interest" within the
meaning of Section 8(1)(j).
14.13. This Court recognises that the obligation to
maintain a spouse is not merely a private
obligation. It is a statutory obligation
recognised under multiple enactments,
including Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
- 107 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023),
Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, and corresponding provisions under
personal laws.
14.14. The right of a wife to be maintained by her
husband is a statutory right of considerable
social importance. Non-payment of
maintenance, particularly when the husband
possesses means but wilfully avoids payment,
is a matter that transcends the individual
dispute and engages broader societal concerns,
including the prevention of destitution, the
protection of the dignity of women, and the
enforcement of legal obligations.
14.15. The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
in Rajesh Ramchandra Kidile, is particularly
instructive. In paragraph 8, the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court made a significant
observation:
"In a litigation, wherein the issue involved is of
maintenance of wife, the information relating to
salary details no longer remains confined to the
- 108 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
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."
14.16. This observation recognises an important
principle: in the context of maintenance
litigation, financial information concerning one
spouse ceases to be exclusively personal to that
spouse and acquires a shared character, as
both spouses have a legitimate interest in such
information for the just resolution of their rights
and obligations.
14.17. The decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Smt. Sunita Jain, also supports
this view. The Court expressly held that while
dealing with Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the
matrimonial relationship between the parties
cannot be lost sight of and that a wife is
entitled to know the remuneration earned by
her husband. The Court distinguished Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande on the ground that
the facts in a matrimonial context are
materially different.
14.18. The decision of the Central Information
Commission in Neena Bhatnagar Mani, also
- 109 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
considered a factual matrix strikingly similar to
the present case. The Commission observed
that where a deserted wife is unable to secure
maintenance due to non-disclosure of the
husband's income, the refusal to provide
information becomes life-related and impacts
her right to live with dignity. The Commission
allowed disclosure in such circumstances.
14.19. However, this Court must sound a note of
caution. The concept of "larger public interest"
cannot be so expansively interpreted as to
encompass every private dispute, however
genuine or sympathetic the case of the
applicant may be. There is a distinction
between a matter of public interest and a
matter of individual interest, howsoever
legitimate. The RTI Act is a legislation designed
to promote transparency and accountability in
the working of public authorities. It is not a
substitute for discovery or production of
documents in civil or criminal proceedings. The
mechanisms for securing production of
documents in pending proceedings are well
established in procedural law.
- 110 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
14.20. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Petitioner
"cannot claim those details as a matter of
right." While the Court recognised the
discretion of the Public Information Officer or
the Appellate Authority to order disclosure
where larger public interest justifies it, the
Court did not hold that maintenance disputes
automatically satisfy the larger public interest
test.
14.21. In Subhash Chandra Agarwal's case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 293 made
a nuanced observation about the nature of
"public interest", noting that in different
contexts, the justification for transparency and
disclosure may differ. The Court recognised that
public interest must be located in the specific
facts and circumstances of each case.
14.22. This Court is of the view that while the need for
a deserted wife to obtain financial information
of her husband for the purpose of maintenance
proceedings is a legitimate and sympathetic
concern, it does not, by itself, satisfy the
statutory test of "larger public interest" under
- 111 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The expression
"larger public interest" postulates an interest
that extends beyond the individual parties to
the dispute and concerns the public at large or
a significant section thereof. An individual
maintenance dispute, however meritorious,
remains primarily a private matter between the
spouses.
14.23. That said, this Court also recognises that there
is a systemic dimension to the problem. Where
husbands routinely suppress income to defeat
maintenance claims and wives are left without
any effective means of establishing the true
income, there arises a broader concern about
access to justice, gender equity, and the
enforcement of legal rights. This systemic
dimension may, in appropriate cases, provide
the basis for a finding of larger public interest.
14.24. In the present case, however, the Central
Information Commission did not undertake any
analysis of whether the larger public interest
test under Section 8(1)(j) was satisfied. The
Commission appears to have directed disclosure
by placing reliance upon an earlier order
- 112 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
without applying its mind to the specific
question of larger public interest. This, in the
view of this Court, is a material infirmity in the
impugned order.
14.25. More importantly, as this Court shall deal with
in greater detail under Point (v) below, the
appropriate mechanism for securing production
of income tax returns in pending maintenance
proceedings is through the competent court in
those proceedings, and not through the RTI
Act. The procedural safeguards available in
judicial proceedings, including the power of the
court to assess relevance, impose conditions,
and protect confidentiality, are far more
appropriate than the relatively blunt instrument
of an RTI application.
14.26. I answer Point no. (iii) by holding that the
disclosure sought by Respondent No.1, while
connected to a legitimate concern in pending
maintenance proceedings, does not, by itself,
satisfy the statutory test of "larger public
interest" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act so
as to override the exemption protecting
personal information. The expression "larger
- 113 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
public interest" postulates an interest that
extends beyond the individual dispute. An
individual maintenance dispute, however
meritorious, primarily remains a private matter
between the spouses. The Central Information
Commission erred in not applying the larger
public interest test to the facts of the case.
However, this finding does not leave
Respondent No.1 without remedy, as the
appropriate mechanism for obtaining such
information is through the competent court in
the pending maintenance proceedings.
15. Answer to Point No. (iv): Whether Section 138
of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being a special
provision governing disclosure of assessee
information, restricts or regulates disclosure
under the RTI Act, and how it is to be
harmoniously construed with Section 22 of the
RTI Act?
15.1. Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, contends that Section 138 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 is a special statutory
provision dealing specifically with disclosure of
information relating to assessees. It is
submitted that the general provisions of the RTI
Act cannot override this special provision by
virtue of the well-established principle generalia
- 114 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
specialibus non derogant, namely, that a later
general law does not impliedly override an
earlier special law unless there is clear
inconsistency or irreconcilable repugnancy.
15.2. In support of this submission, learned counsel
relies upon the decision in Girish Mittal,
wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court placed
reliance on the three-Member Bench decision of
the Central Information Commission in G.R.
Rawal. In the said decisions, the interplay
between the RTI Act and Section 138 of the
Income-tax Act was specifically considered. The
reasoning proceeds on the principle that while
the RTI Act is a general enactment, Section 138
of the Income-tax Act is a special statutory
provision. Relying upon the maxim generalia
specialibus non derogant, it was held that the
special statutory regime governing
confidentiality of tax information would prevail
over the general provisions of the RTI Act.
15.3. Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1, does not directly address the question of
Section 138 of the Income-tax Act in his
submissions. His submissions are primarily
- 115 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
directed towards the larger public interest test
under Section 8(1)(j) and the entitlement of a
wife to obtain financial information of her
husband in maintenance proceedings. However,
the implicit submission is that Section 22 of the
RTI Act, which provides that the RTI Act shall
have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other
law for the time being in force, gives overriding
effect to the RTI Act.
15.4. I have considered the submissions on this point
with care. The relevant statutory provisions
must be extracted and analysed. Section
138(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reads as
follows:
Disclosure of information respecting assessees.
138. (1)(a) The Board or any other income-tax
authority specified by it by a general or special order in
this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to-
(i) any officer, authority or body performing any
functions under any law relating to the imposition of
any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings in foreign
exchange as defined in section-2(d) of the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (7 of 1947) or
(ii) such officer, authority or body performing
functions under any other law as the Central
Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to
- 116 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
do in the public interest, specify by notification in the
Official Gazette in this behalf,
any such information received or obtained by any
income-tax authority in the performance of his
functions under this Act], as may, in the opinion of the
Board or other income-tax authority, be necessary for
the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to
perform his or its functions under that law.
(b) Where a person makes an application to the Chief
Commissioner or Commissioner in the prescribed form
for any information relating to any assessee [received
or obtained by any income-tax authority in the
performance of his functions under this Act], the Chief
Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied
that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause
to be furnished the information asked for and his
decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be
called in question in any court of law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1) or any other law for the time being in force, the
Central Government may, having regard to the
practices and usages customary or any other relevant
factors, by order notified in the Official Gazette, direct
that no information or document shall be furnished or
produced by a public servant in respect of such matters
relating to such class of assessees or except to such
authorities as may be specified in the order
15.5. Section 22 of the RTI Act reads as follows:
Section 22. Act to have overriding effect.
The provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of
1923), and any other law for the time being in
- 117 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
force or in any instrument having effect by
virtue of any law other than this Act.
15.6. Section 22 of the RTI Act contains a non
obstante clause that gives the RTI Act
overriding effect over any other law for the
time being in force, to the extent of
inconsistency. This is a powerful provision that
reflects the legislative intent to give primacy to
the right to information.
15.7. However, the question is whether Section 22
completely overrides Section 138 of the
Income-tax Act, or whether the two provisions
must be harmoniously construed.
15.8. The decision in Girish Mittal, is directly on
point. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, relying on
the three-Member Bench decision of the Central
Information Commission in G.R. Rawal, held
that Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, being a
special provision dealing with disclosure of
assessee information, operates as a self-
contained code and cannot be bypassed by
invoking the general provisions of the RTI Act.
The Court applied the principle expressed in the
- 118 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Latin maxim generalia specialibus non
derogant.
15.9. The principle that a general law does not repeal
a special law by implication is well settled.
However, this principle must be applied with
circumspection where the later general law
contains an express non obstante clause.
Section 22 of the RTI Act is an express
provision giving the RTI Act overriding effect.
The question, therefore, is how to reconcile
Section 22 of the RTI Act with Section 138 of
the Income-tax Act.
15.10. This Court is of the view that the two provisions
can be harmoniously construed as follows:
Section 22 of the RTI Act gives the Act
overriding effect, but the RTI Act itself, through
Section 8, provides exemptions from disclosure.
The exemptions under Section 8, particularly
clauses (e) and (j), already provide sufficient
protection for income tax information.
Therefore, there is no irreconcilable conflict
between Section 22 of the RTI Act and Section
138 of the Income-tax Act. The RTI Act applies
to information held by the Income Tax
- 119 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Department, but the exemptions under Section
8 provide the necessary safeguards against
unwarranted disclosure. Section 138 of the
Income-tax Act provides an additional layer of
regulation governing disclosure of assessee
information through specified channels.
15.11. In other words, an RTI application seeking
income tax returns is not barred by Section 138
of the Income-tax Act per se, as Section 22 of
the RTI Act would override to that extent.
However, the information sought is protected
by the exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act, and disclosure can only be ordered
upon satisfaction of the larger public interest
test. The practical effect of Section 138 is that
it reinforces the confidential character of
assessee information and supports the
conclusion that such information is ordinarily
exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j).
15.12. I answer point no. (iv) by holding that Section
138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being a
special provision governing disclosure of
assessee information, does regulate and restrict
disclosure of income tax information. While
- 120 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Section 22 of the RTI Act gives the Act
overriding effect, the exemptions under Section
8 of the RTI Act, particularly clauses (e) and
(j), provide sufficient protection for income tax
information. The two provisions can be
harmoniously construed: the RTI Act applies to
information held by the Income Tax
Department, but the exemptions under Section
8 protect confidential tax information from
unwarranted disclosure. Section 138 of the
Income-tax Act reinforces the confidential
character of assessee information and supports
the conclusion that such information is
ordinarily exempt from disclosure under Section
8(1)(j), unless the larger public interest test is
satisfied.
16. Answer to Point No. (v): Whether, in the facts
of the present case, the appropriate course for
Respondent No.1 was to seek production of the
income tax returns through the competent
matrimonial court, rather than by invoking the
provisions of the RTI Act?
16.1. Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, in rejoinder, submits that the stand
of the Income Tax Department has been
- 121 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
misunderstood. It is not the case of the
Department that income tax returns can never
be produced. The objection is only to the mode
by which such information is sought to be
obtained. Learned counsel submits that if a
competent court, in the course of maintenance
or matrimonial proceedings, considers it
necessary to summon the income tax returns of
the husband, the Department would be bound
to comply with such judicial direction. In that
scenario, the court would exercise its
discretion, evaluate relevance and necessity,
and pass appropriate orders for the production
of documents. The proper course for
Respondent No.1 is to invoke the procedural
mechanisms available before the concerned
court for summoning documents, rather than
resorting to the RTI Act.
16.2. Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1, submits that Respondent No.1 has no
alternative or effective mechanism to establish
the true income of her husband except by
obtaining copies of the income tax returns filed
by him. The income details are within the
exclusive knowledge and control of the husband
- 122 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
and the Income Tax Department, and denial of
such information would effectively defeat her
statutory right to seek appropriate
maintenance.
16.3. It is submitted that an application was filed
before the concerned Magistrate seeking a
direction to the husband to produce his income
tax returns, but in the final adjudication, the
said aspect was not effectively addressed. The
court, observing that there was no specific
evidence regarding the earnings of the
husband, rejected the claim for enhanced
maintenance and awarded only Rs.7,000/- per
month. In such circumstances, it is contended
that the RTI Act provides the only viable
statutory mechanism through which she can
access certified records already available with
the Income Tax Department.
16.4. I have carefully considered the rival
submissions on this pivotal point. This point
goes to the heart of the dispute. The question is
not merely whether the information can be
disclosed, but what is the appropriate legal
mechanism for obtaining it.
- 123 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
16.5. It is well settled that in proceedings relating to
maintenance, whether under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section
144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023), the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, or under personal laws, the
court has ample power to summon documents,
direct production of records, and compel
disclosure of financial information. The court
adjudicating a maintenance claim has the
inherent power, and indeed the duty, to
ascertain the true financial capacity of the
parties in order to fix just and fair maintenance.
16.6. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
Kusum Sharma, is a comprehensive
illustration of the powers available to the
matrimonial court. In the said decision, the
court issued detailed directions requiring both
parties to file affidavits of their assets, income,
expenditure, liabilities and standard of living,
along with supporting documentary evidence
including income tax returns, bank statements,
audited accounts, and related financial records.
The court also directed the parties to remain
present with all original documents relating to
- 124 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
their assets, income and expenditure. This
demonstrates that the matrimonial court has
the necessary jurisdiction and procedural tools
to compel financial disclosure.
16.7. This Court is of the considered view that the
RTI Act is not the appropriate mechanism for
obtaining income tax returns of a spouse in the
context of maintenance proceedings. The
following reasons support this conclusion:
16.7.1. First, the RTI Act was enacted to
promote transparency and accountability
in the working of public authorities. Its
primary purpose is to enable citizens to
access information regarding the
functioning of the Government and its
instrumentalities. It was not designed as
a tool for obtaining evidence in private
litigation between parties. While the
definition of "information" under Section
2(f) is broad enough to encompass
income tax returns, the purpose of the
Act is directed towards public
accountability, not towards facilitating
private litigation.
- 125 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
16.7.2. Second, the procedural mechanisms
available in judicial proceedings provide
far more appropriate safeguards than an
RTI application. When a court summons
documents, it exercises judicial
discretion; it assesses relevance and
necessity; it can impose conditions on
use and disclosure; it can protect
confidentiality where required; and it can
balance the competing interests of the
parties. An RTI application, by contrast,
is a relatively blunt instrument that does
not permit such nuanced balancing.
16.7.3. Third, the courts adjudicating
maintenance claims have comprehensive
powers to compel disclosure. Under
Section 91 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (now Section 94 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023), a court may issue a summons to
produce a document or thing. Under
Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, the court may summon
any person to produce documents.
Under Section 165 of the Indian
- 126 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 168 of
the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023), the court has the power to put
questions and order the production of
documents. These provisions vest ample
authority in the court to compel the
Income Tax Department to produce the
returns of an assessee.
16.7.4. Fourth, when a court issues a summons
or direction to the Income Tax
Department to produce the income tax
returns of an assessee, the Department
is bound to comply. The submission of
learned counsel for the Petitioner in
rejoinder that the Department would
comply with a judicial direction is noted
and accepted. This is also consistent with
Section 138 of the Income-tax Act,
which permits disclosure of assessee
information in specified circumstances,
including where required by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
16.7.5. Fifth, it is pertinent to note that
Respondent No.1 did make an
- 127 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
application before the concerned
Magistrate seeking a direction to the
husband to produce his income tax
returns. However, it appears that this
aspect was not effectively addressed in
the final adjudication. The appropriate
course in such a situation is not to resort
to the RTI Act, but to take further steps
within the judicial proceedings
themselves, including filing applications
for summoning documents from the
Income Tax Department, seeking
directions under the court's inherent
powers, or pursuing appellate remedies
against orders declining such
applications.
16.7.6. Sixth, this Court is conscious of the
practical difficulties faced by a deserted
spouse in establishing the income of the
other spouse. The power imbalance in
matrimonial disputes, particularly where
one spouse controls all financial
information, is a recognised problem.
However, the solution lies in
strengthening the mechanisms available
- 128 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
within the judicial process, not in
deploying the RTI Act as a substitute for
judicial discovery.
16.8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Khanapuram Gandaiah, relied upon by
learned counsel for Respondent No.1, while
holding that an applicant under the RTI Act can
get any information which is already in
existence and accessible to the public authority,
also recognised the limitations of the RTI Act.
The Court held that an applicant cannot use the
RTI Act to seek explanations or reasons for
decisions. While this specific limitation is not
directly applicable here, the broader principle is
that the RTI Act has a defined scope and
purpose, and cannot be stretched beyond its
legislative intent.
16.9. Having said the above, this Court is mindful
that the observation of this Court should not be
construed as denying Respondent No.1 her
legitimate right to obtain relevant financial
information for the purpose of her maintenance
claim. The right of a wife to seek just and fair
maintenance is a valuable legal right, and the
- 129 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
courts must ensure that procedural
inadequacies do not defeat substantive
entitlements. It is, therefore, open to
Respondent No.1 to approach the competent
court in the pending maintenance proceedings
and seek a direction to the Income Tax
Department to produce the income tax returns
and related financial records of her husband.
Any such application, if made, shall be
considered on its own merits by the concerned
court.
16.10. I answer Point No.(v) by holding that the
appropriate course for Respondent No.1 was to
seek production of the income tax returns
through the competent matrimonial court,
rather than by invoking the provisions of the
RTI Act. The RTI Act is not the appropriate
mechanism for obtaining income tax returns of
a spouse in the context of maintenance
proceedings. The courts adjudicating
maintenance claims have ample powers to
summon documents and compel disclosure of
financial information, and the procedural
safeguards available in judicial proceedings are
far more appropriate than the relatively blunt
- 130 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
instrument of an RTI application. However,
Respondent No.1 is at liberty to approach the
competent court in the pending maintenance
proceedings to seek a direction to the Income
Tax Department to produce the income tax
returns and related financial records of her
husband.
17. Answer to Point No. (vi): Whether the order
dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Central
Information Commission directing disclosure of
the information calls for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
17.1. Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, submits that the impugned order
passed by the Central Information Commission
is unsustainable in law. It is contended that the
Commission has failed to properly appreciate:
(a) the fiduciary relationship between the
Income Tax Department and the assessee; (b)
the statutory exemptions under Sections
8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; (c) the
protection afforded to personal financial
information under binding precedents of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court; and (d) the overriding
effect of the special mechanism under Section
138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On these
- 131 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
grounds, it is submitted that the order deserves
to be set aside and the RTI application filed by
Respondent No.1 deserves to be rejected.
17.2. Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1, contends that the Central Information
Commission, having considered the peculiar
facts and the nature of the request, rightly
allowed the appeal and directed disclosure. It is
submitted that the order of the Central
Information Commission is reasoned, justified,
and does not warrant interference under Article
226 of the Constitution. It is further submitted
that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
17.3. I have considered the submissions of both sides
and have independently examined the
impugned order of the Central Information
Commission dated 12.04.2019.
17.4. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of
the Constitution in respect of orders passed by
the Central Information Commission is well
settled. The High Court exercises writ
jurisdiction not as a court of appeal but as a
court of limited judicial review. Interference
with the order of the Commission is warranted
- 132 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
where the Commission has: (a) acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; (b)
failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it; (c)
committed an error of law apparent on the face
of the record; (d) violated principles of natural
justice; or (e) arrived at a decision that no
reasonable body could have arrived at on the
material before it.
17.5. Having examined the impugned order, this
Court finds that the Central Information
Commission erred in the following respects:
17.5.1. First, the Commission appears to have
directed disclosure by placing reliance
upon an earlier order passed in WP No.
18778/2017 (Smt. Jammalu Padma
Manjari v. CPIO and DCIT) without
undertaking an independent analysis of
the facts of the present case. Reliance
on an earlier order, without applying the
mind to the specific circumstances of the
case at hand, does not constitute a
reasoned decision.
17.5.2. Second, the Commission failed to apply
the larger public interest test mandated
- 133 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The
exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is
qualified by the condition that disclosure
may be ordered only where the
competent authority is satisfied that
larger public interest warrants it. This
satisfaction must be recorded and must
be based on an assessment of the facts.
The impugned order does not contain
any analysis of whether the request of
Respondent No.1 satisfies the larger
public interest test.
17.5.3. Third, the Commission failed to give due
weight to the authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande, which categorically held
that income tax returns are personal
information exempt from disclosure
under Section 8(1)(j), unless a larger
public interest is established. The
Commission was bound by this
pronouncement and ought to have
addressed why, notwithstanding the said
- 134 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
pronouncement, disclosure was being
directed.
17.5.4. Fourth, as discussed under Point (v)
above, the appropriate mechanism for
obtaining income tax returns in the
context of maintenance proceedings is
through the competent court, not
through the RTI Act. The Commission,
by directing disclosure through the RTI
route, bypassed the judicial process and
the safeguards embedded therein.
17.6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned order dated
12.04.2019 passed by the Central Information
Commission suffers from errors of law apparent
on the face of the record and calls for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
17.7. However, while setting aside the impugned
order, this Court is also mindful of the
legitimate concern of Respondent No.1 in
obtaining financial information of her husband
for the purpose of her maintenance claim. This
Court does not wish to leave Respondent No.1
- 135 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
without any remedy. Accordingly, while setting
aside the impugned order, this Court grants
liberty to Respondent No.1 to approach the
competent court in the pending maintenance
proceedings and seek appropriate directions for
production of the income tax returns and
related financial records of her husband by the
Income Tax Department. Any such application
shall be considered on its own merits by the
concerned court.
17.8. I answer point no. (vi) by holding that the order
dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Central
Information Commission directing disclosure of
the income tax returns and related information
of the husband of Respondent No.1 calls for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The Commission erred in: (a)
directing disclosure without applying the larger
public interest test under Section 8(1)(j); (b)
failing to follow the binding pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande; and (c) relying on
an earlier order without independent application
of mind. The impugned order is accordingly
liable to be set aside. However, Respondent
- 136 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
No.1 is granted liberty to approach the
competent court in the pending maintenance
proceedings to seek appropriate directions for
the production of income tax returns and
related financial records.
18. General Directions and Guidelines
18.1. This Court cannot be unmindful of the practical
difficulties encountered in a large number of
proceedings relating to maintenance and
alimony instituted under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Hindu Marriage Act, and allied statutes.
Determination of maintenance necessarily
depends upon a fair and accurate assessment
of the income, assets, liabilities and overall
financial capacity of the parties. Delay is
frequently occasioned because one spouse is
unable to place on record reliable documentary
material establishing the true income of the
other spouse.
18.2. Such documents are required not only to
substantiate a claim for maintenance, but
equally to enable the opposite spouse to rebut,
- 137 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
negate, or contextualise the claim, and to assist
the court in arriving at a proper and just
calculation of maintenance or permanent
alimony. In the absence of authentic financial
records, the adjudicating court is compelled to
proceed on conjecture or incomplete
disclosures, which undermines the objective of
rendering equitable relief.
18.3. Having held that income tax returns and related
financial particulars cannot ordinarily be
accessed through an application under the
Right to Information Act, 2005, and that the
appropriate course for a spouse seeking such
material is to approach the competent court for
necessary directions to the Income Tax
Department, this Court is of the considered
opinion that structured procedural safeguards
are required.
18.4. Until an appropriate legislative framework is
formulated, it is necessary to lay down guiding
principles to ensure that:
18.4.1. genuine claims for maintenance/alimony
are not defeated for want of
documentary proof;
- 138 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
18.4.2. exaggerated or unfounded claims can be
effectively scrutinised; and
18.4.3. courts are equipped with reliable
financial data to determine just and
reasonable maintenance or alimony.
18.5. Accordingly, this Court has framed guidelines
regulating the procedure to be followed by
matrimonial courts when applications are made
seeking production of income tax returns and
related financial records from the Income Tax
Department. The said guidelines are annexed to
and shall form an integral part of this
judgment. They are set out separately only to
facilitate clarity, uniform implementation, and
ease of dissemination across all subordinate
courts within the jurisdiction of this Court.
19. Answer to Point No. (vii): What order?
19.1. In view of the findings recorded on Points (i) to
(vi) above, this Court passes the following
- 139 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is partly allowed in the following terms:
ii. The order dated 12.04.2019 bearing File No.CIC/CCITB/A/2017/180340-BJ passed by the Central Information Commission (Respondent No.2) is hereby set aside.
iii. It is declared that income tax returns, assessment particulars and related financial details of an assessee constitute personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and are exempt from disclosure under the said provision unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure.
iv. It is held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the disclosure sought by Respondent No.1 through the RTI route does not satisfy the test of larger public interest so as to override the statutory exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
- 140 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR v. It is further held that the appropriate mechanism for obtaining income tax returns and financial records of a spouse in the context of maintenance proceedings is through the competent court adjudicating the maintenance claim, and not through the provisions of the RTI Act.
vi. Liberty is granted to Respondent No.1 to approach the competent court in the pending maintenance proceedings, namely Criminal Appeal No.303/2017 or any other proceedings as may be pending, and file an appropriate application seeking directions to the Income Tax Department to produce the income tax returns and related financial records of her husband, Sri Zafar Ali Ansari, for the Assessment Years 2012-2017 or such other period as may be relevant.
vii. In the event Respondent No.1 files such an application before the competent court, the said court shall consider the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within a period
- 141 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR of four weeks from the date of filing of such application.
viii. The Income Tax Department is directed to comply with any direction that may be issued by the competent court for the production of the income tax returns and related financial records of the assessee, in accordance with the provisions of Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and other applicable laws.
ix. There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY
- 142 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR GUIDELINES FOR COURTS AND THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
1. Background and Genesis 1.1. In the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.34625 of 2019 (GM-RES) titled Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari and another, this Court was called upon to consider whether the income tax returns and financial records of an assessee could be disclosed to his spouse under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
1.2. The Court held that while income tax returns constitute "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and are exempt from disclosure under the said provision, the appropriate mechanism for a spouse to obtain such financial information is through the competent Court adjudicating maintenance proceedings, and not through the RTI Act.
1.3. During the course of the judgment, this Court observed that while the right of a wife to seek just and fair maintenance is a valuable legal
- 143 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR right, procedural inadequacies must not defeat substantive entitlements. It was further observed that the courts adjudicating maintenance claims have ample powers to summon documents and compel disclosure of financial information from the Income Tax Department, and that the procedural safeguards available in judicial proceedings are far more appropriate than the relatively blunt instrument of an RTI application.
1.4. In order to ensure uniformity, clarity and effective implementation of the principles laid down in the said judgment, and to prevent a situation where spouses are left without any effective remedy for obtaining financial information necessary for the just adjudication of maintenance claims, this Court considers it necessary to issue comprehensive guidelines for the courts and the Income Tax Department.
2. Scope and Applicability: These guidelines shall apply to:
2.1. All Magistrate Courts, Family Courts, Sessions Courts and Appellate Courts within the State of Karnataka adjudicating proceedings relating to
- 144 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR maintenance and or Alimony under any law, including but not limited to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( earlier Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 24 and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and corresponding provisions under other personal laws.
2.2. All officers and authorities of the Income Tax Department, including but not limited to the Central Processing Centre, Centralised Processing Centre, Assessing Officers, Income Tax Officers, Chief Public Information Officers, Commissioner(s) and Chief Commissioner(s) of Income Tax, within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2.3. All proceedings in which one spouse seeks production, discovery, disclosure or inspection of the income tax returns, assessment records, financial statements, bank details or any other financial records of the other spouse which are
- 145 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR in the custody or control of the Income Tax Department.
2.4. All proceedings where similar financial records are sought from other authorities or institutions holding financial information of a spouse, mutatis mutandis, to the extent applicable.
3. Object and Purpose: The object of these guidelines is four-fold:
3.1. First, to provide a clear, efficient and standardised procedural mechanism for spouses to obtain income tax returns and financial records of the other spouse through the competent Court, thereby ensuring that no spouse is left without an effective remedy;
3.2. Second, to ensure that the Income Tax Department and its officers comply promptly and effectively with judicial directions for production of such records, while maintaining appropriate confidentiality safeguards;
3.3. Third, to balance the competing interests of privacy of the assessee, the right of the spouse to seek just maintenance, and the need for effective judicial administration, and
- 146 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 3.4. Fourth, to eliminate procedural delays and impediments that often frustrate the just resolution of maintenance claims due to the non-availability of reliable financial information.
4. Definitions and Interpretation: In these guidelines, unless the context otherwise requires:
4.1. "Applicant Spouse" means the spouse who applies to the competent Court for production or disclosure of income tax returns and financial records of the other spouse;
4.2. "Assessee Spouse" means the spouse whose income tax returns and financial records are sought to be produced or disclosed;
4.3. "Competent Court" means the Court before which maintenance proceedings are pending, or the Court having jurisdiction to entertain a claim for maintenance;
4.4. "Designated Officer" means the officer of the Income Tax Department to whom the Court's direction for production of documents is addressed or who is designated by the Department to comply with such directions;
- 147 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 4.5. "Financial Records" includes income tax returns, assessment orders, Form 16/16A, Form 26AS/Annual Information Statement (AIS), Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) certificates, Profit and Loss accounts, Balance Sheets, capital gains statements, bank account details as reflected in the returns, and any other document or record forming part of the assessment file of the assessee maintained by the Income Tax Department;
4.6. "Maintenance Proceedings" means any proceedings in which one spouse claims maintenance, alimony, financial support, or interim or permanent settlement from the other spouse, under any law for the time being in force;
4.7. "Production Order" means the order or direction issued by the competent Court directing the Income Tax Department to produce the Financial Records of the Assessee Spouse;
4.8. "RTI Act" means the Right to Information Act, 2005;
- 148 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 4.9. "Income-tax Act" means the Income-tax Act, 1961.
5. Relevant Statutory Provisions: The following statutory provisions form the foundation of these guidelines:
5.1. Powers of Courts to Summon Documents 5.1.1. Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973): empowers any court or officer in charge of a police station to issue a summons to any person to produce a document or other thing in his possession which is considered necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code.
5.1.2. Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: provides for the issuance of summons to persons whose attendance is required to give evidence or to produce documents.
- 149 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 5.1.3. Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023( Formerly Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872): confers upon the Judge the power to put questions to a witness or order the production of any document or thing in whatever form, at any stage of any suit, inquiry or proceeding.
5.1.4. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: empowers the Court to order either spouse to pay maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings to the other spouse. The Court has an implied power to direct disclosure of financial particulars for the purpose of determining such maintenance.
5.1.5. Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: empowers the Magistrate to direct the respondent to pay monetary relief, including maintenance. The power to fix just maintenance necessarily
- 150 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR implies the power to ascertain the income and assets of the parties.
5.2. Provisions Governing Disclosure of Income Tax Information 5.2.1. Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: regulates disclosure of information respecting assessees. It permits the Board or specified income-tax authority to furnish information to specified officers, authorities or bodies performing functions under any law, subject to the conditions laid down therein.
5.2.2. Section 138(1)(b): permits disclosure to such officer, authority or body performing functions under any other law as the Central Government may specify by notification in the Official Gazette, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest.
5.2.3. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act:
exempts from disclosure information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to
- 151 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies such disclosure.
6. Duty to Enquire into Financial Capacity 6.1. In every proceeding relating to alimony and/or maintenance, the competent Court shall, at the earliest opportunity and preferably at the first effective hearing, enquire into the financial capacity of both parties and specifically ascertain whether either party wishes to seek production of financial records from the Income Tax Department or any other authority.
6.2. The Court shall not determine maintenance based merely on oral assertions or unverified claims regarding income. Where the income of either party is disputed, the Court shall suo motu consider invoking its powers to summon documentary evidence, including income tax returns and related financial records.
- 152 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR
7. Procedure upon Application by a Spouse: Where the Applicant Spouse files an application seeking production of income tax returns and financial records of the Assessee Spouse from the Income Tax Department, the Court shall adopt the following procedure:
7.1. On an application being filed, notice of the application shall be served on the Assessee Spouse, affording an opportunity to file objections within a period of seven days from the date of service.
7.2. The Court shall hear the application, consider any objections of the Assessee Spouse, and pass a reasoned order within a period of fourteen days from the date of filing of the application.
7.3. While considering the application, the Court shall satisfy itself on the following parameters:
7.3.1. That the information sought is relevant to the determination of the maintenance claim;
7.3.2. That the Applicant Spouse has been unable to obtain the information by other
- 153 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR reasonable means, including through voluntary disclosure by the Assessee Spouse;
7.3.3. That the scope of the information sought is proportionate to the needs of the case and is not unduly wide or oppressive;
7.3.4. That the period for which the records are sought is relevant to the maintenance proceedings; and 7.3.5. That appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the confidentiality of the information and prevent misuse.
7.4. Upon being satisfied, the Court shall issue a Production Order in the prescribed format addressed to the Designated Officer of the Income Tax Department.
7.5. The Production Order shall clearly specify the assessment years for which records are sought, the specific documents required, the name and PAN of the Assessee Spouse, and the date by which compliance is required.
- 154 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 7.6. The Production Order shall contain a direction that the records be produced in a sealed cover, to be opened only by the Court.
7.7. A copy of the Production Order shall be served on the Assessee Spouse.
8. Conditions and Safeguards to be Imposed by Courts: While issuing a Production Order, the Court shall impose the following conditions.
8.1. Sealed Cover: The Income Tax Department shall produce photocopies of the records in a sealed cover addressed to the Court, certifying that they are the true copies of the originals maintained by the Income Tax Department. If printed from a database, the necessary certification under the relevant laws shall accompany such documents. The records shall not be directly furnished to the Applicant Spouse.
8.2. Inspection by Parties: Upon receipt, the Court shall open the sealed cover in the presence of both parties or their advocates and afford inspection. The Assessee Spouse shall be given an opportunity to identify any information
- 155 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR that is not relevant to the maintenance proceedings and which, in the opinion of the Assessee Spouse, ought not to be disclosed.
8.3. Selective Disclosure: The Court shall, after hearing both parties, determine which portions of the records are relevant to the maintenance proceedings and shall disclose only such relevant portions to the Applicant Spouse. Irrelevant information, particularly information relating to third parties whose financial details may appear in the returns, shall be redacted or withheld.
8.4. Undertaking: Before any disclosure is made, the Court shall obtain an undertaking from the Applicant Spouse (and his or her advocate) that the information obtained shall be used solely for the purpose of the pending maintenance proceedings and shall not be disclosed to any third party or used for any other purpose whatsoever.
8.5. Prohibition on Copying: The Court may, in its discretion, direct that the Applicant Spouse shall be entitled to inspect and take notes of the relevant financial records, but shall not be
- 156 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR permitted to retain copies, unless the Court considers it necessary for the fair conduct of the proceedings. Where copies are permitted, the Court shall impose appropriate conditions.
8.6. Return of Records: Upon conclusion of the proceedings, or upon the records ceasing to be required, the Court shall direct that all records furnished by the Income Tax Department be returned to the Department or destroyed (if photocopy has been produced).
9. Suo Motu Powers of the Court: The competent Court may, even in the absence of a formal application by the Applicant Spouse, exercise its suo motu powers to summon income tax returns and financial records from the Income Tax Department where the Court considers that the determination of a fair and just maintenance is not possible without such records. In such cases, the Court shall record reasons for exercising the suo motu power and shall afford an opportunity to the Assessee Spouse to be heard before issuing the Production Order.
10. Directions for Financial Disclosure by Both Spouses
- 157 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 10.1. As Directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Vs Neha and Another15 the competent Court may, at the earliest opportunity, direct both spouses to file affidavits of their respective assets, income, expenditure, liabilities, and standard of living, along with supporting documentary evidence including income tax returns, bank statements, salary certificates, audited accounts, and related financial records, as may be applicable.
10.2. Where the Assessee Spouse fails to comply with the aforesaid direction or furnishes incomplete or misleading information, the Court shall be entitled to draw an adverse inference against the Assessee Spouse and to proceed to summon the records directly from the Income Tax Department.
11. Obligation to Comply with Judicial Directions:
Upon receipt of a Production Order from a competent court, the Designated Officer of the Income Tax Department shall ensure prompt and complete compliance with the same. The judicial direction shall be treated as having been issued in the exercise of the Court's statutory power to summon documents, 15 (2021 (2) SCC 324)
- 158 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR and non-compliance shall be amenable for appropriate proceedings.
12. Designation of Nodal Officers: The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax having jurisdiction shall designate a Nodal Officer, not below the rank of Income Tax Officer, at each Principal Commissioner/Commissioner charge, to receive, process and comply with Production Orders issued by courts in maintenance proceedings. The name, designation, office address and contact details of the Nodal Officer shall be communicated to all courts within the jurisdiction and shall be updated annually.
13. Procedure for Compliance: Upon receipt of a Production Order, the Designated Officer/Nodal Officer shall follow the procedure set out below:
13.1. Acknowledge receipt of the Production Order within three working days from the date of receipt.
13.2. Retrieve the income tax returns and financial records of the Assessee Spouse for the specified assessment years from the records maintained by the Department, including
- 159 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR electronic records available on the Central Processing Centre system, the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA), the Integrated Taxpayer Data Management System (ITDMS), or any other system as may be in use.
13.3. Prepare certified copies of the relevant documents, duly authenticated by the officer under his seal and signature.
13.4. Place the certified copies in a sealed cover addressed to the Court, clearly marking the cover with the case number, the name of the Assessee Spouse, and the words "CONFIDENTIAL -- TO BE OPENED ONLY BY THE COURT."
13.5. Dispatch the sealed cover to the Court through a responsible officer or through registered post / speed post / special messenger, ensuring proof of delivery.
13.6. File a compliance report with the Court confirming the furnishing of the records, along with a covering letter listing the documents enclosed.
- 160 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR
14. Timeline for Compliance: The Income Tax Department shall comply with the Production Order within the following timelines:
Action Timeline
Acknowledgement of
3 working days
Production Order
Retrieval and
14 working days
certification of records
Dispatch in a sealed 3 working days after
cover to the Court certification
Filing of compliance Within 3 working days of
report dispatch
Total maximum time 21 working days
from receipt to (approximately 30
compliance calendar days)
- 161 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056
WP No. 34625 of 2019
HC-KAR
15. Records Not Available or Not Maintained: Where the records sought are not available, either because no return was filed for the specified assessment year, or because the records have been destroyed in accordance with the record retention policy of the Department, or for any other bona fide reason, the Designated Officer shall file an affidavit before the Court, clearly stating which records are not available and the reasons therefor. The Court shall then decide the matter on the basis of the material available and may draw appropriate inferences.
16. Objections by the Income Tax Department: If the Income Tax Department has any objection to complying with the Production Order, whether on the ground of jurisdiction, scope, or any statutory restriction, such objection shall be raised before the Court which issued the Production Order within seven working days of receipt. The Department shall not unilaterally decline to comply. The objection shall be supported by a reasoned application filed by an officer not below the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court shall hear the objection and pass orders expeditiously.
- 162 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR
17. Handling of RTI Applications by Spouses: Where a spouse files an application under the RTI Act seeking income tax returns or financial records of the other spouse in connection with maintenance proceedings, the Public Information Officer (CPIO/PIO) of the Income Tax Department shall:
17.1. Process the application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, including Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) and 11 thereof;
17.2. Inform the applicant, in the order disposing of the RTI application, that the appropriate mechanism for obtaining income tax returns in the context of maintenance proceedings is through the competent Court, and not through the RTI Act;
17.3. Provide the applicant with the name, designation and address of the Nodal Officer designated to receive and comply with judicial directions; and 17.4. Where the application discloses that the applicant is a spouse seeking information in connection with maintenance proceedings, specifically advise the applicant to file an
- 163 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR appropriate application before the competent Court.
18. Powers of Appellate Courts: Where the competent Court of first instance has declined to issue a Production Order, or where the competent Court has issued a Production Order but the same has not been complied with, the Appellate Court (Sessions Court / District Court as the case may be) shall exercise its revisional or appellate jurisdiction to:
18.1. Examine whether the Court of first instance properly exercised its discretion in declining the Production Order, having regard to the parameters set out above;
18.2. Direct the Court of first instance to issue a Production Order where the refusal was not justified;
18.3. Directly issue a Production Order in the exercise of its appellate or revisional powers where the interests of justice so require; and 18.4. Take appropriate action against the Income Tax Department for non-compliance with a Production Order, including initiation of contempt proceedings.
- 164 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR
19. Enhancement of Maintenance Pending Appellate Determination: Where the appellate Court is satisfied that the maintenance awarded by the Court of first instance was inadequate due to the non-availability of financial records of the Assessee Spouse, and where such records are subsequently produced pursuant to a Production Order, the appellate Court shall re-assess the maintenance quantum in light of the additional material and pass appropriate orders, including retrospective enhancement where warranted.
20. SAFEGUARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR DISCLOSURE: The following safeguards shall be mandatory in every case where income tax returns or financial records are produced pursuant to a Production Order:
20.1. Sealed Cover Procedure: All records shall be transmitted in sealed covers. The seal shall not be broken except by the Court.
20.2. Confidentiality Undertaking: The Applicant Spouse and his/her advocate shall execute a written undertaking, on affidavit, that the information shall be used solely for the purpose of the maintenance proceedings and shall not
- 165 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR be disclosed, published, shared, or disseminated to any third party.
20.3. Prohibition on Misuse: Any misuse of the information obtained, including use for purposes other than the maintenance proceedings, defamation, harassment, or initiation of collateral proceedings based on the financial information, shall be viewed as contempt of Court and/or abuse of process.
20.4. Protection of Third-Party Information:
Where the income tax returns or financial records contain information relating to third parties (such as business partners, associates, banks, or other individuals), the Court shall ensure that such third-party information is redacted or protected from disclosure to the extent it is not relevant to the maintenance proceedings.
20.5. Limited Retention: Copies of the records, if provided to the Applicant Spouse, shall be returned to the Court upon conclusion of the proceedings or upon the Court so directing.
- 166 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 20.6. Judicial Record: The records produced by the Income Tax Department shall form part of the judicial record and shall be subject to the same rules of confidentiality and access as other court records.
21. Breach of Safeguards: Any breach of the safeguards set out above by the Applicant Spouse or his/her advocate shall entitle the Court to:
21.1. Initiate contempt proceedings against the defaulting party;
21.2. Revoke the permission to inspect or retain copies of the financial records;
21.3. Draw adverse inference against the Applicant Spouse in the maintenance proceedings;
21.4. Award costs to the Assessee Spouse; and 21.5. Pass such other orders as may be deemed just and appropriate.
22. Non-Compliance by the Assessee Spouse: Where the Assessee Spouse fails to comply with the direction of the Court to disclose income and assets, the Court shall be entitled to:
- 167 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR
22.1. Draw an adverse inference that the income of the Assessee Spouse is at least as stated by the Applicant Spouse;
22.2. Issue a Production Order to the Income Tax Department suo motu;
22.3. Award costs against the Assessee Spouse;
22.4. Impose such other penalty as may be permissible under law.
23. Non-Compliance by the Income Tax Department: Where the Income Tax Department fails to comply with a Production Order within the stipulated time without justifiable reasons, the Court shall be entitled to:
23.1. Issue a peremptory direction with a further timeline;
23.2. Summon the Designated Officer / Nodal Officer to appear in person and explain the non-
compliance;
23.3. Initiate proceedings for contempt of Court;
23.4. Report the non-compliance to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax;
- 168 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 23.5. Award costs against the Department.
24. Applicability to Other Financial Authorities:
These guidelines shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to applications seeking financial records of a spouse from other authorities and institutions, including but not limited to:
24.1. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department, for GST returns and assessment records;
24.2. The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), for provident fund balance and contribution statements;
24.3. Banks and financial institutions, for bank account statements and loan records;
24.4. The Registrar of Companies / Ministry of Corporate Affairs, for company filings and directorship details;
24.5. Any other public authority or institution holding financial information of the Assessee Spouse.
25. Savings Clause: Nothing in these guidelines shall be construed as:
- 169 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 25.1. Limiting or curtailing the inherent powers of any court;
25.2. Restricting the right of any party to seek production of documents through any other lawful mechanism;
25.3. Overriding any specific statutory provision governing the production or disclosure of documents; or 25.4. Creating any right to disclosure of financial information outside the judicial process or for purposes other than maintenance proceedings.
26. Gender Neutrality: These guidelines are gender-
neutral. They apply equally to applications filed by a wife seeking financial information of the husband, and to applications filed by a husband seeking financial information of the wife. The pronouns used in these guidelines are for convenience only and shall be construed to include all genders.
27. Communication and Dissemination: A copy of these guidelines shall be:
- 170 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11056 WP No. 34625 of 2019 HC-KAR 27.1. Circulated to all Magistrate Courts, Family Courts, Sessions Courts and District Courts in the State of Karnataka;
27.2. Forwarded to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka and Goa Region, for circulation to all offices of the Income Tax Department within the jurisdiction.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38