RTI Request for Father-in-law's Financial Details Denied by Commission
In a significant ruling from Lucknow, the State Information Commission (SIC) has firmly rejected a man's application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, where he sought detailed financial information about his father-in-law. The appellant, identified as Kulwant Singh, had requested this data to ascertain whether his father-in-law possessed the financial capacity, or "haisiyat," to provide a substantial dowry of Rs 26 lakh, as alleged by his wife in an ongoing divorce case.
Background of the Controversial RTI Application
The case originated when Kulwant Singh's wife accused him of accepting Rs 26 lakh as dowry, leading to legal proceedings. In response, Singh filed an RTI application in July 2025 with the tehsildar of Najibabad in Bijnor district, targeting his father-in-law, who served as a revenue inspector in the tehsil. He specifically requested comprehensive details, including:
- Salary statements
- General Provident Fund (GPF) records
- Loan and advance details
- Movable and immovable assets
Singh argued that as a son-in-law, he was not an outsider and needed this information to challenge the dowry allegations in court, questioning the feasibility of such a large sum being offered.
Commission's Grounds for Denial
After Singh did not receive the information initially and filed an appeal with the SIC, the bench, headed by Information Commissioner Mohammad Nadeem, delivered a decisive verdict. The commission emphasized that the requested details unequivocally fall under the category of personal information, which is protected under the RTI Act. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, Nadeem clarified that:
- Salary details, income tax records, provident fund information, loans, family details, and property data are considered personal and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act in most circumstances.
- The purpose of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does it permit unwarranted interference with an individual's privacy.
The bench further stated that being a son-in-law does not grant any entitlement to access such personal financial information. Moreover, seeking information for use in a lawsuit does not constitute a "large public interest" as required under the RTI framework.
Legal Alternatives and Implications
In its ruling, the SIC provided guidance on the appropriate legal avenues for such cases. The bench advised that if the applicant deems it necessary to gather such information for his defense, the proper forum is the court where the divorce case is pending. Specifically:
- The applicant can legally disclose all relevant information before the court.
- An application can be made to the relevant department to obtain the data.
- If the court finds it necessary, it can order the department to provide the information directly.
This decision underscores the balance between transparency and privacy under the RTI Act, reinforcing that the law is designed for public interest matters rather than personal disputes. It sets a precedent for similar cases where individuals might attempt to use RTI for gathering evidence in private legal battles, particularly in sensitive matters like dowry allegations.
The ruling from Lucknow highlights the ongoing challenges in dowry-related cases and the legal boundaries of information access, ensuring that privacy rights are upheld even in contentious family disputes.
