RTI applicants often seek information in respect of their spouses employed with a public authority. The kind of information sought, mostly relates to information on leave absences, salary details, service records, investments made etc. These details are mainly sought when the spouses are estranged or have disputes interse and require this information for submission as evidences in the court cases filed by them against each other. Let us see if the courts have differentiated between the RTI applications filed by a spouse and non-spouse.
Service records, leave details, investments made by spouse:
In a case before the Delhi High Court, the husband had sought disclosure of his wife’s service records pertaining to all leave application forms submitted by her; attested copies of nomination and other official documents with financial implications, record of investments made and reflected in the service documents, along with nominations thereof, for the purpose of submission before the competent court where a dispute was pending between him and his wife.
His request for information was denied by the CPIO, by invoking Section 8(1) (j) i.e invasion of privacy and lack of public interest. The Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission had concurred with the view of the CPIO, thereby forcing him to approach the Delhi High Court. The question to be decided by the Delhi High Court was whether the records were justifiably withheld on grounds of lack of public interest element and likelihood of invasion of privacy.
The husband urged the following before the Court:
- The information sought for was not really of a third party, but pertained to his wife.
- Although they are facing each other in litigation, nevertheless, having regard to their relationship, the invocation of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) was not justified.
- The ground of lack of public interest and unwarranted intrusion of privacy, were unavailable in this case.
- Being a public official, his wife was under a duty to make proper and truthful disclosure; the pleadings made by her in the divorce proceedings, contained untruthful averments.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that, the “public interest” argument of the Petitioner is premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her, and requires information, – in the course of a private dispute – to establish the truth of his allegations..…The petitioner has, not been able to justify how such disclosure would be in “public interest” : the litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.
Salary details/remuneration of the spouse for maintenance cases filed in courts:
The public authorities are mandated to display in public domain the monthly remuneration received by each of its employees[1]. Monthly remuneration, gross salary therefore is disclosable.
What if an individual seeks information on the monthly remuneration of its spouse? In a case before the division bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh[2], the wife had filed an RTI application to seek the salary details of her husband employed with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited(BSNL). The husband and wife had estranged relationship and matrimonial disputes between them were pending in the courts.
Wife’s RTI application was rejected by the CPIO/BSNL. When the matter reached CIC, CIC passed the order under Section 4(1)(b)(x) directing BSNL to make the information available in the public domain. CIC’s order was challenged by BSNL before the single bench of MP High Court. The single Judge held the information to be exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act (invasion of privacy and lack of public interest).
The wife approached the division bench. The question before the division bench was whether such information is exempt Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and is a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the husband.
The division bench observed that 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 and allowed the appeal of the wife.
Salary slips are not disclosable under the RTI Act[3]. The reasoning being that salary slips contain deductions made from the salary, remittances made to bank towards any loan amount, to the income tax department, deductions made to provident fund etc all of which are personal information. What if a spouse seeks salary slips? Bombay High Court[4] is of the view that if salary slips are sought by the wife in order to support her contention in a litigation, filed against her husband, 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.
Complaints filed by spouse:
Estranged spouses often seek copy of complaints filed by their spouses against them to Police etc. Is the public authority bound to provide copy of such complaints under the RTI Act? In a matter before the Delhi High Court[5] the husband had sought information relating to the complaints (Steps undertaken pursuant to the complaint, Status of the complaint, Copy of the investigation report) submitted by his wife against him and her ex-husbands under Section 154 Cr. P.C and Section 498A/ 406/377/34 of Indian Penal Code from the Special Police Unit for Women and Children under the RTI Act. He required this information for establishing his case regards the voidability of his marriage on the ground of fraud under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Delhi High Court took the view that such information is personal and non disclosable under the RTI Act. The Spouse however, has the remedy before courts for discovery/interrogatories etc and also in the Mahila Court, where the investigating officer could produce the documents before the court in the sealed cover and the court too has the power to summon the documents sought by the husband from the police authorities.
Abuse of the RTI Act
In a matter before the Madras High Court[6], the wife raised repeated queries to ascertain whether her husband re-married or was living with somebody else. The Court was of the view that for such purpose, the spouse cannot be permitted to invoke the provisions under the RTI Act. This is nothing but an abuse of the provisions of the RTI Act besides being a harassment of the spouse’s employer.
Conclusion:
It is immaterial if the RTI applicant happens to be the spouse of the individual whose information he/she has sought. The RTI Act does not accord any differential treatment to an RTI application filed by a spouse. The CPIO only has to decide whether the information sought is exempted under the RTI Act or not and if the information sought does not seem to have any relationship to any public interest or activity, the CPIO can very well refuse to provide the information to the spouse. However, if a wife is seeking salary related information of her spouse for the purpose of her maintenance plea filed in courts, in view of the above court decisions, such information would not be personal information and CPIO would be bound to disclose it to the wife.
[1] Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act, 2005
[2] Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others, W.A. No.168/2015 dated 15.5.2018
[3] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Cen. Information Commr. and others, reported in AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 690
[4] Rajesh Ramchandra Kidile vs The Maharashtra State Information Commission, WP No.1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018
[5]Amit Meharia vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors, WP (C) 2211/2021 dated 17.8.2021
[6]P.S. Santhimeenal vs The Principal Government Arts College and others W.P(MD)No.5043 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 dated 3.3.2016
51 Comments
Comments are closed.