Moneylife: National: Saturday, April 28, 2018.
In a case of
domestic conflict, Seema Jain wanted to procure details of her husband,
Sachendra Kumar’s income and investment details, as allegedly, he was hiding
his income leading to payment of a meagre alimony of Rs500 per month for their
daughter. Recently the Central Information Commission has directed the public
authority (postal department, in this case) to provide information to her on
all details of his income, fixed deposits, bank accounts and any other
investment in the postal department, where he is working as an agent.
CIC Prof
Acharyulu observed in his decision, that, ``Information about assets, income
and investments of spouses cannot be protected as personal information between
spouses, in view of the public interest in maintenance of families and domestic
peace. The proviso to Section 8(1) (j) read with Section 8(2) of the Right to
Information Act entitled the appellant to get information because of
overwhelming public interest and her interest in securing adequate maintenance
for their daughter.’’
When Seema
took the RTI route last year and sought income details of her husband, the CPIO
replied that the information is not available with him and stated that as per
Section 2(f), information which is available can be furnished but the
information which requires to be created or collected does not fall in his
purview. In other words, the information which she was asking for, did not fall
in his purview. The Appellate Authority upheld the response of CPIO and also
stated that as per Section 8(1)(e) of the Act, the information is also exempted
from disclosure. The matter went in second appeal to the CIC.
At the CIC
hearing, Seema referred to an earlier CIC decision (Prashansa Sharma v Delhi
Transco Ltd. (CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) dated 03.02.2015) which held that ``income
related information such as annual returns of assets, investments, IT returns
should not be withheld from each other between the spouses, as that information
was needed to fulfil the legal duty to maintain the spouse. Information about salary and annual
statements of assets of the public servant is not personal information. Though
the savings accounts, IT returns and other investments are considered personal,
they could be disclosed in public interest as per the proviso of Section
8(1)(j). Enforcing the legal right of maintenance is the ‘public interest’.’’
During the
argument it was revealed that details of his income and investments are
available at the Zilla Parishad, as it is the appointing authority for agents
like him. So, the onus is on the CPIO to transfer the RTI application to the
zilla parishad office. The CPIO ignored this duty and violated Section 2 (f)
and Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act.
CIC Prof Sridhar
Acharyulu observed that, ``The appellant in this case is fighting for her peace
in domestic life, and financial support to maintain her daughter. The
information sought is important for her to make a claim for adequate
maintenance and also necessary information for the court of law to adjudicate
the questions of facts and law. Thus it is not only a matter in the larger
public interest but is also information concerning the right to her life and
that of their daughter.’’
In one of the
Delhi High Court judgments, it was noted, that ‘parties rarely disclose their
true income and therefore, the Courts have to resort to the status and life
style of the parties for fixing the maintenance. When the wife has a right to
information in her capacity as a citizen, why should she not seek such
information which would help her to secure honourable maintenance?’’’
The CIC has
thus directed CPIO B.K. Singh, ``to provide point-wise information after
collecting the same from the Zilla Parishad, Lalitpur along with details of the
commission paid by the postal department, within 25 days from this date.’’ A
show cause notice for ``illegally denying information and not transferring the
RTI application to the Zilla Parishad has also been slammed on him.’’ The CPIO has been directed to submit his
explanation, before 17th May, 2018.
Transparency
in this matter is important with reference to a Supreme Court verdict which has
said in no uncertain terms that, ``any delay in adjudication of maintenance
cases by the Family Court is not only against human rights but also against the
basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The object of the provisions of
grant of maintenance is to provide speedy remedy for the supply of food,
clothing and shelter to the deserted wife and to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. Without proper information made available or accessible, it is
difficult for a spouse to seek the realisation of her human right to
maintenance.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
