Issue before Court:
The sole issue in the present writ petition is whether information related to income-tax returns of politician can be provided to any individual in purview of proviso of section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the information he sought under Right to Information Act and whether such information falls within the exempted category under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Brief Facts:
- Petitioner is an RTI Activist and is a former Central Information Commissioner. Presently working as Chairman of technical advisory committee set up by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
- Petitioner filed an application under section 6 of RTI Act to CPIO, Income-tax Department requesting him to supply information more particularly the Income-tax returns and balance sheets of Sh. Ajit A Pawar, Dy. CM, Maharastra i.e. Respondent No. 3 who is a third party.
- On receipt of such application CPIO sent a letter to respondent no. 3 in terms of section 11 of the RTI Act and respondent no. 3 filed reply objecting disclosure of any information.
- CPIO after receipt of such reply from respondent no. 3 denied the said information to the petitioner and held that said information has no relationship to any public activity or interest and therefore does not qualify in terms of proviso of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
- Petitioner thereafter appealed to first appellate authority on the ground that exemption u/s 8 (1) (j) does not apply. The appeal was dismissed by holding that information related to ITR is personal in nature and stands exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j). The first appellate authority relied upon judgment of Apex Court in matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs CIC (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 212.
- Aggrived from the order of First Appellate authority petitioner filed appeal before Central Information Commission. Petitioner in the second appeal relied upon the judgement of Apex Courts in the matters of R. Rajgopal alias RR Gopal & Anrs Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 632 and Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr.(ADR) (2002)5 Supreme Court Cases 294. Ground was taken in the appeal that Apex Court while deciding case of Girish Deshpandey ignored law laid down in both the cases and also ignored provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
- CIC upheld orders passed by CPIO and First Appellate Authority.
Contention of the revenue:
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
