Central Information Commission
Neena Bhatnagar Mani vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 18 June, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITB/A/2018/106268-BJ
Ms. Neena Bhatnagar Mani
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & ITO
CPC, Office of the Income Tax Officer
Centralized Processing Centre, Prestige Alpha
Post Box No. 01, Electronic City Post
Bangalore - 560500
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.06.2019
Date of Decision : 18.06.2019
Date of RTI application 19.04.2017
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
CPIO's response 02.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 21.06.2017
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
First Appellate Authority's response 31.07.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.01.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 09 Points in respect of the Gross and Net Taxable income, Professional fees received, details of assets and liabilities of Bhaskar Mani for the Assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16; and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 02.06.17, denied providing the information under Section 8(1)(e), while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012. Dissatisfied by the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 31.07.17, while concurring with the response of the CPIO referred to the decision of the Commission in CIC/BS/A/2016/001440-BJ dated 07.04.2017 which was stayed by the High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 28.04.2017.Page 1 of 6
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Neena Bhatnagar Mani through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Madhusudana, ITO, CPC, Unit III & CPIO through VC;
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 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 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.
Subsequently, the Commission was in receipt of additional written submission from the Appellant dated 15.06.2019 wherein it was inter alia stated that the FAA had committed gross non-application Page 2 of 6 of mind and error in passing the order which could be set aside and information provided. While contesting the reply of the CPIO, it was stated that in identical circumstances, through another RTI application dated 11.11.2014 she had received identical information vide CPIO order in ITO- 17(2)(4)/RTI-4/2014-15. Hence the decision of the CPIO was purely arbitrary and bad in law.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 10.06.2019 wherein a reference was made to the decision of the Commission in CIC/BS/A/2016/001440-BJ dated 07.04.2017 in the case of Smt. Jammula Padma Manjari vs. The CPIO and DCIT (HQ) (Admn) O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka and Goa Region, Bengaluru directing the CPIO to provide the information requested by one spouse to another. It was submitted that against the said order, a Writ Petition No. 18778/2017 (GM-RES) was filed before the High Court of Karnataka 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. It was ascertained from the Sr. Standing Council that the stay granted as per the interim order continued as on date and the case had not yet been posted for a hearing till date. Furthermore, it was stated that the approval of the Higher Authority had been communicated to the Sr. Standing Counsel to file Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka against the CIC order in CIC/CCITB/A/2017/180340-BJ dated 12.04.2019 in the case of Mrs. Gulsanobar Bano, Mumbai which was similar to the case mentioned in para no 01.
The Commission at the outset referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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 private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
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 Page 3 of 6 to any 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."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
A reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization 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."
14. The 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 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."
However, making a distinction with the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. 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 had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband held as under:
"While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No.1 is getting.
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.Page 4 of 6
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."
Moreover, the Hon'ble 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 held as under:
"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 instalments, 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 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 Ramachandra Deshpande (supra) such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI 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 petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband hence accessible by the wife. But in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife.
9. Then, by the application filed under the provisions of the RTI Act, information regarding mere gross salary of the petitioner has not been sought and what have been sought are the details if the salary such as amounts relating to gross salary, take home salary and also all the deductions from the gross salary. It is such nature of the information sought which takes the present case towards the category of exempted information.
10. All these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authority below and, therefore, I find that its order is patently illegal, not sustainable in the eyes of law."
It was observed that the Respondent while denying information in their written submission sent to the Commission submitted that approval of the Higher Authority had been communicated to the Sr. Standing Counsel to file Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka against the CIC order in CIC/CCITB/A/2017/180340-BJ dated 12.04.2019. The Commission observed that granting approval to the Standing Counsel to challenge another decision of the Commission before the High Court could not by any stretch of imagination be considered to be a valid ground for denying information in the instant matter but rather appeared to be against the spirit of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the decision of Sunita Jain.
The Commission in the context of duty of CPIO referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
Page 5 of 6"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, the Commission while setting aside the decision of the CPIO / FAA instructs the Respondent (CPIO) to furnish the information to the Appellant respecting the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Smt. Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 in letter and spirit within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and endorse a copy of the said decision to the Commission also failing which action under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 shall be initiated. The Respondent was however, advised to endorse a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well on the email id provided by her during the hearing.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 18.06.2019
Page 6 of 6