IT Returns Are Personal, Not Public: Karnataka HC Quashes CIC Order Directing Disclosure to Wife Under RTI; Issues Guidelines
Matrimonial disputes or maintenance claims, by themselves, do not automatically amount to “public interest”, statutory mechanisms must be respected before directing disclosure of confidential tax information
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court on the interplay between the Right to Information Act and tax confidentiality, has held that income tax returns of an assessee constitute personal information and cannot be disclosed to a spouse under the RTI Act, 2005 in the absence of demonstrable larger public interest. However, it even noted that the appropriate course for the wife was to seek production of the income tax returns through the competent matrimonial court.
The Bench also laid down comprehensive guiding principles for future cases, clarifying that when income tax returns or similar financial records are sought under the RTI Act, Information Officers must first examine whether the information constitutes personal information under Section 8(1)(j), whether it is held in a fiduciary capacity, and whether any demonstrable larger public interest exists.
The Court stressed that matrimonial disputes or maintenance claims, by themselves, do not automatically amount to “public interest”, and that statutory mechanisms under the Income-tax Act must be respected before directing disclosure of confidential tax information.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, consequentially, set aside an order of the Central Information Commission which had directed the Income Tax Department to furnish a husband’s tax returns and related financial details to his wife.
“It is declared that income tax returns, assessment particulars and related financial details of an assessee constitute personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and are exempt from disclosure under the said provision unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure”, the judgment read.
“…the appropriate course for Respondent No.1 was to seek production of the income tax returns through the competent matrimonial court, rather than by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. The RTI Act is not the appropriate mechanism for obtaining income tax returns of a spouse in the context of maintenance proceedings. The courts adjudicating maintenance claims have ample powers to summon documents and compel disclosure of financial information, and the procedural safeguards available in judicial proceedings are far more appropriate than the relatively blunt instrument of an RTI application”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate M. Dilip appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Kemparaju appeared for the respondent.
The Court in the matter was hearing a writ petition filed by the Income Tax Officer and CPIO of the Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru, challenging the CIC’s order dated 12-04-2019.
The first respondent, wife of an assessee, had sought copies of her husband’s Income Tax Returns for Assessment Years 2012–2017, along with details of tax paid and connected bank accounts. The CPIO rejected the request under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, holding that the information was held in a fiduciary capacity and constituted third-party information.
The First Appellate Authority upheld the rejection, observing that no larger public interest had been demonstrated.
However, the Central Information Commission allowed the second appeal and directed disclosure, relying on a prior High Court ruling in a different case. Thereby being aggrieved, the Income Tax Department approached the High Court.
Now, the principal questions before the Bench were:
-Whether income tax returns are “personal information” exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
-Whether the relationship between the Income Tax Department and an assessee is fiduciary in nature under Section 8(1)(e).
-Whether a spouse can claim access to such information under RTI in the absence of larger public interest.
-Whether Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (a special statute governing disclosure of tax information) overrides the general provisions of the RTI Act.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Cen. Information Commr. & SLP(C) No.27734/2012, where it was categorically held that details disclosed in income tax returns are personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j), unless larger public interest justifies it.
The High Court observed that income tax returns contain private financial details of an individual which may include third-party transactional information. Further they are submitted under statutory compulsion with an expectation of confidentiality. The Court, accordingly, held that disclosure of such information, would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Income Tax Department receives tax returns in a relationship of trust and statutory confidence, and therefore, such information is not part of public functioning but pertains to private financial affairs, the Bench noted.
The Court also examined Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, which specifically governs disclosure of tax-related information.
Applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (general law does not override special law), the Court held that the RTI Act, being a general law on information access, cannot dilute the confidentiality framework under the Income-tax Act unless expressly provided.
Therefore, allowing the writ petition, the Karnataka High Court quashed the CIC’s order and held that income tax returns and related financial details are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act in the absence of overriding public interest.
And procedurally, reaffirmed that RTI cannot be used as a substitute for discovery mechanisms in matrimonial or private disputes.
Cause Title: Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Gulsanober & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:11056]
Appearances:
Petitioner: M. Dilip and Y. V. Raviraj, Advocates.
Respondent: Kemparaju, Shanthi Bhushan, Advocates.