TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have no relationship to any public activity or interest; and third, that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual - Even if the aforesaid conditions are met, such information can be disclosed if the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande [2012 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT], the question whether Income tax returns are personal information is no longer res integra, where it was held that the petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the impugned order ) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter CIC ). 2. By the impugned order, the CIC has allowed the second appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter RTI Act ) by directing the petitioner to provide the information as sought by the respondent by his application filed on 12.03.2016. The CIC has also called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for failing to provide the information within the prescribed time. Factual Background 3. On 12.03.2016, the respondent filed an application with the petitioner (CPIO, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 32(5), New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the petitioner was justified in denying the information relating to the Income Tax Returns of M/s P.K. Himatsingka to the respondent, as the said information being a third party information and in the nature of personal information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner Ors: (2013) 1 SCC 212 in support of his contention. 9. Mr Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contested the aforesaid submission and contended that the company M/s P.K. Himatsingka Co. was declaring a lower income than its genuine income for evading taxes. He also contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation; second, that disclosure of such information should have no relationship to any public activity or interest; and third, that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. 13. Even if the aforesaid conditions are met, such information can be disclosed if the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. 14. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra), the Supreme Court had examined the question whether the CIC was correct in denying information pertaining to a person s income tax returns on the ground that such information, fell within the scope of personal information . Answering the aforementioned question in the affirmative, the Supreme Court held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... access for personal information about a third party. The conflict poses two related challenges for law makers; first, to determine where the balance should be struck between these aims; and, secondly, to determine the mechanisms for dealing with requests for such information. The conflict between the right to personal privacy and the public interest in the disclosure of personal information was recognized by the legislature by exempting purely personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Section 8(1)(j) says that disclosure may be refused if the request pertains 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 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m - a distinction must be made between personal data inherent to the person and those that are not, and, therefore, affect his/her private life. To quote the words of the learned single Judge if public servants are obliged to furnish asset declarations, the mere fact that they have to furnish such declaration would not mean that it is part of public activity, or interest . That the public servant has to make disclosures is a part of the system s endeavour to appraise itself of potential asset acquisitions which may have to be explained properly. However, such acquisitions can be made legitimately; no law bars public servants from acquiring properties or investing their income. The obligation to disclose these investments and assets is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
