Right to information – 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 Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether the Central Information Commissioner acting under the Right to Information Act, 2005 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 Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Supreme Court held 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. were 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 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.

The Supreme Court further held that the details disclosed by a person in his income-tax 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.