Court holds income tax returns as personal information exempt under RTI Act unless larger public interest is proven; directs spouse to seek financial records through competent courts, not RTI, and issues detailed procedural guidelines
In a landmark judgment dated 21 February 2026, the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 34625 of 2019 (GM-Res) ruled that income tax returns and related financial details of an assessee constitute personal information protected under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The Court emphasized that such information is exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is demonstrated, and clarified that the RTI Act does not authorize disclosure of confidential tax information to third parties, including spouses, absent such interest.
The case arose when Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari filed an RTI application seeking her husband's income tax returns, assessment particulars, and related financial details for Assessment Years 2012-2017 to substantiate her claim for maintenance in pending matrimonial proceedings. The Income Tax Department, acting as the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), rejected the request citing fiduciary confidentiality and statutory exemptions under the RTI Act. The Central Information Commission (CIC) had earlier directed disclosure, which the Income Tax Officer challenged before the High Court.
The Court held that the husband qualifies as a "third party" under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, as the statutory definition includes any person other than the citizen requesting the information, without exception for spouses. While the matrimonial relationship does not alter this status, it may influence the application of the "larger public interest" test.
Referring to binding Supreme Court precedents, including Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Aditya Bandopadhyay v. Central Board of Secondary Education, the Court reiterated that income tax returns are inherently personal and confidential information submitted in a fiduciary relationship with the Income Tax Department. Disclosure absent a demonstrable larger public interest would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and breach of confidentiality.
Significantly, the Court clarified that maintenance proceedings, although important, do not automatically constitute a larger public interest sufficient to override the statutory exemptions. The private nature of matrimonial disputes precludes using the RTI Act as a substitute for judicial discovery or evidence gathering. The Court further held that Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which regulates disclosure of assessee information, operates as a special provision alongside the RTI Act, reinforcing the confidentiality of tax records.
Importantly, the Court set aside the CIC order directing disclosure through RTI and held that the correct and lawful procedure for spouses seeking financial information for maintenance claims is to approach the competent matrimonial court. The courts possess adequate powers to summon documents, including income tax returns, from the Income Tax Department under procedural laws, ensuring judicial scrutiny, relevance assessment, confidentiality safeguards, and proportionality.
To address practical challenges in matrimonial maintenance cases, the Court issued comprehensive guidelines for courts and the Income Tax Department. The guidelines prescribe a standardized procedure for obtaining income tax returns and related financial records through court orders, including notice to the spouse whose records are sought, sealed cover transmission of documents, limited inspection, confidentiality undertakings, protection of third-party data, timelines for compliance, and mechanisms for objections and enforcement.
The judgment balances the constitutional rights to privacy and to life and dignity, recognizing that while a deserted spouse’s right to maintenance is critical, it does not transform private financial disputes into matters of larger public interest under the RTI Act. The decision safeguards the confidentiality of sensitive tax information while ensuring spouses have access to necessary financial records through proper judicial channels.
The writ petition was partly allowed by setting aside the CIC order. The petitioner was directed to reject the RTI application, and the respondent was granted liberty to seek production of income tax returns via the pending maintenance proceedings. The Income Tax Department must comply with judicial directions under Section 138 of the Income-tax Act.
Bottom Line:
Income Tax returns and related financial details of an assessee constitute personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and are exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest warrants disclosure; a spouse is a "third party" under the RTI Act, but the matrimonial relationship may influence the larger public interest assessment; disclosure through RTI for maintenance proceedings is not appropriate, and such information should be obtained through the competent court; the Central Information Commission's direction to disclose without applying the larger public interest test was set aside; detailed guidelines were issued for courts and Income Tax Department on production of financial records in matrimonial maintenance proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Right to Information Act, 2005 Sections 2(n), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), 11, 22; Income-tax Act, 1961 Section 138; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 91 (now Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XVI Rule 6; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 165 (now Section 168 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023); Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 24.
