{"id":5763,"date":"2012-10-05T04:48:24","date_gmt":"2012-10-05T04:48:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=5763"},"modified":"2012-10-05T04:48:24","modified_gmt":"2012-10-05T04:48:24","slug":"girish-ramchandra-deshpande-vs-cic-supreme-court-income-tax-details-can-be-disclosed-under-rti-only-if-in-larger-public-interest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/girish-ramchandra-deshpande-vs-cic-supreme-court-income-tax-details-can-be-disclosed-under-rti-only-if-in-larger-public-interest\/","title":{"rendered":"Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=881\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=881&varname2=girish_deshpande_RTI_income_tax_ROI.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (girish_deshpande_RTI_income_tax_ROI.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nIncome-tax details can be disclosed under RTI only if in &#8220;larger public interest&#8221;<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Petitioner sought details of the Respondent&#8217;s movable and immovable properties and also the details of investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. He has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the Respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information sought for finds a place in the <strong>income tax returns<\/strong> of the Respondent. The Supreme Court had to consider whether the information sought for qualifies to be &#8220;<strong>personal information<\/strong>&#8221; as defined in clause (j) of S. 8(1) of the RTI Act. HELD by the Supreme Court: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &#8220;personal information&#8221; which stands <strong>exempted from disclosure<\/strong> under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless it involves a <strong>larger public interest<\/strong> and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the <strong>larger public interest justifies the disclosure<\/strong> of such information. On facts, as the Petitioner has not made a <strong>bona fide public interest<\/strong> in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause <strong>unwarranted invasion of privacy<\/strong> of the individual u\/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are &#8220;personal information&#8221; which stands <strong>exempted from disclosure<\/strong> under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless it involves a <strong>larger public interest<\/strong> and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the <strong>larger public interest justifies the disclosure<\/strong> of such information. On facts, as the Petitioner has not made a <strong>bona fide public interest<\/strong> in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause <strong>unwarranted invasion of privacy<\/strong> of the individual u\/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/girish-ramchandra-deshpande-vs-cic-supreme-court-income-tax-details-can-be-disclosed-under-rti-only-if-in-larger-public-interest\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5763","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}