'Personal details can’t be revealed under RTI'

Express News Service; Thursday, February 17, 2011,

KOCHI: Responding to the controversy over his unwillingness to disclose Income Tax returns, former CJI K G Balakrishnan has said that he had asked the authorities not to disclose his IT returns as the details may be misused. “I wrote to the authorities not to disclose my IT returns because it has my PAN and bank account number. “The details may be misused and that is the reason I wanted the authorities not to disclose my IT returns. Nobody would like to reveal personal details,” Balakrishnan told mediapersons while responding to the controversy.

The controversy began when it came to light that Balakrishnan, who is currently the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, had asked the Central Public Information Officer (PIO) at the Income Tax Department, Kochi, not to reveal his IT returns under the RTI Act to T Balachandran, an RTI activist based here. Balachandran had filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax seeking certified copies of the Income Tax returns of Balakrishnan from 2005 to 2010. The Income Tax Department referred the RTI query to Balakrishnan asking whether he had any objection to revealing the information or not.

Based on his response, the PIO of the Income Tax Department informed Balachandran that “K G Balakrishnan, filed a letter objecting to disclosing the above information. He stated that disclosure of the information sought for by Balachandran is one which is exempted from disclosure as per section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.” Following Balakrishnan’s objection, the Income Tax Department rejected the RTI application by Balachandran. As per section 8(j) of the RTI Act, Information which relates 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 individual, is completely exempted from disclosure unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, is satisfied that the larger public interest justified the disclosure of such information.