CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

(Room No.315, B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

Prashansa Sharma v Delhi Transco Ltd,

No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000433
Decided on 3.2.2015
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu, (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner

Referred Sections : Sections 3, 7(1), 18(3)(a)

& 19(3) of the RTI Act

Result : Appeal allowed/Summons and

Show cause issued to PIO

Summary: Appellant is allegedly a victim of domestic violence, non maintenance and

starved by husband, who is a government employee. She sought to know details of
his property including that given in dowry and action details against her husband for
attempting to commit bigamy, etc.

In Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (FAO 369/1996 decided on 14th

January 2015), Delhi High Court directed both spouses to file affidavits about their
income, assets and investments and listed out the documents to be attached including
certain documents which were earlier held to be personal or third party information.

Depending on the financial conditions and non­availability of support from parents, when
husband does not maintain his wife, it challenges her right to live, and thus information
related to maintenance becomes life related information. This information about assets,
income and investments of spouses is no more private or personal information as against
spouses, even if that information could be personal or private information as against any
person other than spouse. The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 8(2) of the
Right to Information Act entitled the appellant to get information which she sought
because of overwhelming public interest in securing the lives of deserted wives.
The Commission thus holds that
a. the spouses have right to information between them as listed by Delhi High Court
in paragraph 20 above.
b. The husband in this case, has a duty to provide all that information listed above
to his wife, and the appellant wife has right to information as established by Delhi

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 1
 High Court based on rights of marriage as provided by various statutes of family
law. who he is not maintaining and public authority has authority and power to
enforce that duty, which is supported by the CCS Rules.
c. Though certain documents like annual returns of assets, investments, IT returns
etc were earlier declared as private/ personal or third party information, as far as
spouses are concerned they are not private or personal or third party information
between them, in the context of marital disputes especially for maintenance
purposes.
d. The PIO’s cannot reject the request for such information, if filed by spouses, on
the ground of Section 8(1)(j) saying it is personal information, because the
protection of privacy is overridden by the huge public interest in maintaining
wives, as provided in the proviso to exception 8(1)(j). The larger public interest in
maintenance of wives and children, prevention of domestic violence, etc., for the
purposes of the disclosure of such information, which was strongly established by
the Delhi High Court in two landmark judgments referred above.
e. The information related income details in the context of non­maintenance of the
spouse, becomes the life related information which should be given within 48
hours according to proviso to Section 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005.

The PIO was summoned to explain delay and denial of information.

Heard on 23.12.14. Appellant not present. Respondent is represented by

Shri Vasu Dev.

2. The appellant, Mrs. Prashasha Sarma, allegedly victimized by the cruelty,

beating, desertion, dowry demand, MMS by her husband Sameer, a public servant

and his family despite paying more than Rs. 50 lakh dowry to them. She wrote: “ I

got married to Sameer..my parents gave all luxury items ie., i10 Car, AC, fridge,

washing machine, all furniture (sofa, dining table with chairs, double bed) Gold

worth Rs 50lakh and cloths and items of kitchen & electronic items i.e., TV

camera, etc) in my marriage, arranged at star hotel on demand by mother­in­law

Mrs. Sudha Rani. From day one mother in law, husband and my brother­in­law

started torturing me and were saying ‘you do good job. If you work and earn and

give money to us then you will get food otherwise not. You bring money from your

parents till you are not earning”. I brought money twice from my parents and gave

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 2
to them, but they were not satisfied, they wanted more and more. My mother in law

told me that Sameer is paying mortgage of two houses and he is left with no

money to feed you. I spent 15 days without food and lost 15 kg weight and went

back to my parents house on asking of my mother in law and Sameer. My husband

in fact deserted me and never came back to take me. I went along with Sameer on

order of family court Dwarka. He beaten me on 8.5.13 and made my mms when I

was changing my cloths. An FIR No 142/13 is lodged at PS Dwarka on 9.5.2013 to

this effect. I may please be furnished following information: 1) Is it not a duty of a

government servant to maintain his family; 2) Is he allowed to beat his wife and

make an MMS; 3) Is he permitted to give matrimonial advertisement when his first

wife is alive and not divorced, 4) Is dual employment permitted in DTL, Since he is

running a courier business also. She sought information about his moveable and

immovable property details including bank details, income tax returns of last five

years, annual property returns for the last five years, and information about the

departmental proceedings if initiated against him on her written complaint

submitted on 23.5.2013”.

3. In reply Mr. Vasudev, Manager HR PIO, dated 11.10.2013, (on point no.2) the

office referred to a letter dated 21.8.2013, three pages that can be obtained on

payment of cost, (on point No. 3) she was asked to refer to conduct rules, (on point

no 4) the CPIO claimed exemption of section 8(1)(h) saying disclosure of

information impedes the process of investigation, (on point 5) she was advised to

approach prosecution agency and (on point 6) information about car which he sold,

and house in Noida. Unsatisfied with reply the appellant made First Appeal. FAA

on 6.11.2013 upheld the order of the CPIO. The appellant made second appeal

before the Commission.

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 3
4. Neither the CPIO nor his representative made any attempt to tell the

Commission as to what charge was under investigation, what information if

revealed would cause obstruction, what kind of obstruction etc to the investigation.

To the question whether department investigated his matrimonial advertisement

during life time of wife especially when the marriage is still subsisting, the PIO

asked her to see the CCS conduct Rules. The Commission finds this as blocking of

information without verifying the rules and without even considering prima facie the

complaint. To the question whether his dual employment charge against him was

investigated, the PIO stated it was his personal information. To her point no. 5

regarding immovable and movable properties he advised her to approach

prosecution not their department. The reply was so negligently drafted that number

of points in her RTI application and PIO’s answers do not match. Under point 7 she

asked to furnish property returns for last five years, PIO’s response is ‘no

information asked’. For point 8, seeking to know whether any departmental action

was initiated on her written complaint, she was asked to go back to para 2.

5. In response to her question regarding action taken report on her complaint, the

PIO who is also Manager HR gave a three page information in tabular form signed

by him on 21.3.2013, which refers under point 1 to Rule 13­A of CCS Conduct

Rules 1964 that prohibits dowry crime. Instead of answering whether any action is

taken by department, PIO takes excuse of pendency of case before courts and

claims ‘it may be difficult for DTL to intervene”. The PIO is expected to know that

under RTI Act, ‘sub judice’ is no exception, and that the question did not relate to

prosecution but departmental action. Whatever was the status, that information

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 4
should have been furnished. On her request to DTL to direct Sameer to hand over

the car, the PIO stated that DTL cannot take any action. Does it mean that public

authority will allow the employee to use property which proceeded from dowry

crime?

6. On her request for 1/3rd of salary of Sameer, as she was not given food which

being violation of CCS conduct rules, the response of PIO was reference to Rule

3(12) stating that DTL will not take any action. Lastly the reply says DTL is already

investigating a disciplinary action on account of criminal proceedings against him

and issue of running business of courier company is also under investigation by

DTL. As a wife she has a right to maintenance, which was violated.

7. The appellant filed first appeal complaining that PIO gave misleading replies

and falsely mentioned that on her parent’s refusal to give dowry, Sameer filed a

divorce petition, which she never stated. She questioned the way PIO washed­off

hands on lame excuse of ‘sub judice’. She reiterated her demand for information

why there was no inquiry against him for dowry demand, dual employment,

domestic violence, making of her mms etc. She also raised the issue of non­

furnishing of annual property returns. She demanded action for suppression of

information that he received Hyundai car, Rs 50 lakh worth gold etc in his annual

returns and what action taken by department. The First Appellate Authority did not

apply mind at all and simply rejected the appeal. Without giving reasons Mr. S. P.

Sanwal stated to have agreed to every stand taken by PIO. Both PIO and First

Appellate Authority are supposed to give reasoned order after giving due

opportunity to both the parties. The Commission finds the PIO gave illegal order

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 5
suppressing information and supplying wrong and incomplete answer, and FAA

gave an arbitrary order without reasons.

8. Delhi Transco is part of Delhi Government which is a Union Territory. Hence

the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 will apply to the employees of

Delhi Transco also, which reflected in the PIO’s answer. Based on the

recommendations of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption headed by late K.

Santhanam, the Conduct Rules for Government servants were revised with a view

to maintaining integrity in public Services and the Central Civil Services (Conduct)

Rules, 1964 were notified laying down the Code of Conduct for Central

Government employees. By S.O. 4177­ in exercise of the powers conferred by the

proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution and after

consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to persons

serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the President made the

Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which were duly notified. Rule 3, 3B

and 3C say:

3. General
(1) Every Government servant shall at all times­­
(i) maintain absolute integrity;
(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.

3B. Observance of Government's policies

Every Government servant shall, at all times­
(i) act in accordance with the Government's policies regarding age of
marriage, Preservation of environment, protection of wildlife and cultural
heritage;
(ii) observe the Government's policies regarding prevention of crime
against women.
Clause 3C prohibits sexual harassment of women at work places.

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 6
9. It is clear from this that a Government employee is expected not to commit

crimes against women, or cause sexual harassment at workplace. It does not

permit an employee to commit such crimes at home also.

(5) Conduct of Government Servant in relation to the proper

maintenance of his family
Instances of failure of Government servants to look after the proper maintenance
of their families have come to Government’s notice. It has been suggested that a
provision may be made in the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, to
enable Government to take action against those Government servants who do
not look after their families properly.
2. The question has been examined and it has been decided that it will not
be possible to make such a provision in the Conduct Rules as it would entail
administrative difficulties in implementing and enforcing it. However, a
Government servant is expected to maintain a responsible and decent standard
of conduct in his private life and not bring discredit to his service by his
misdemeanours. In cases where a Government servant is reported to have acted
in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant as for instance, by neglecting
his wife and family, departmental action can be taken against him on that score
without invoking any of the Conduct Rules. In this connection, a reference is
invited to Rule 13 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 (now Rule 11) which specifies
the nature of penalties that may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed on
a Government servant. It has been held that neglect by a Government
servant of his wife and family in a manner unbecoming of a Government
servant may be regarded as a good and sufficient reason to justify action
being taken against him under this rule.
3. It should, however, be noted that in such cases the party affected has a
legal right to claim maintenance. If any legal proceedings in this behalf should be
pending in a court of law, it would not be correct for Government to take action
against the Government servant on this ground as such action may be construed
by the court to amount to contempt. [MHA OM No. 25/16/59­Ests.(A), dated
01.09.1959]
10. It is the legal right of spouse to claim maintenance. The last para of rule says
that department cannot make the employee to maintain his wife, but it does not
mean that departmental action cannot be initiated against him for neglecting his
wife and family as clearly stated under para 2 of the above rule.
13­A. Dowry
No Government servant shall­

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 7
 (i) give or take or abet the giving or taking of dowry; or
(ii) demand directly or indirectly, from the parent or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry.
Explanation:­ For the purposes of this rule, ‘dowry’ has the same meaning
as in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(28 of 1961).
(5) Acceptance of dowry by Government servants
It is provided in this Ministry’s OM No. 25/8/57­Estt.(A) dated the 25th March,
1957 that dowry should be regarded as a customary gift which a Government
servant may accept without prior sanction and that subject to the provisions of
the rules relating to gifts and transactions in immovable and movable property, all
such gifts should be reported to the Government or other prescribed authority.
2. The matter has been reviewed in the context of the provisions contained in the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 of this Act defines dowry as ‘any property
or valuable security given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly by one party
to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to
a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other
person at or before the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said
parties, but does not include dowry or mahar in the case of persons to whom the
muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies’.
For removal of doubts. Explanation I below Section 2 declares that ‘any presents
made at the time of marriage to other party to the marriage in the form of cash,
ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the
meaning of the section unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of
the said parties’. Persons who are guilty of giving or taking or abetting the giving
or taking of dowry, or demanding any dowry, directly or indirectly from the parents
or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, are liable to the
punishments prescribed in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
In the circumstances, Government servant should not give or take or abet the
giving or taking of dowry; nor should they demand dowry, directly or
indirectly, from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the
case may be. Dowry can, therefore, no longer be treated as ‘customary gift’ as
has been stated in this Ministry’s OM of 25.03.1957 referred to in para 1 above.
Any violation of the provision of Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 by a
Government servant will constitute a good and sufficient reason for
institution disciplinary proceedings against him in addition to such legal
action as may be taken against him in accordance with the provisions of
the Act.
11. Acceptance or demand of dowry by the public servant is a
misconduct, which would warrant disciplinary action, that should have
been initiated in this case. Initially the PIO claimed that matter is under
subjudice and refused to interfere until court decides the matter. In
response to her complaint, the same officer who is also HR Manger, made a

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 8
single sentence statement that on account of criminal proceedings
disciplinary action is initiated. The public authority neither performed the
duty of checking his employee on allegation of crime nor provided any
information to the appellant. This response being an obstruction calls for
penal proceedings against the PIO for suppression of all this information
and rejection of RTI request on illegal ground.

21. Restriction regarding marriage

(1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a
person having a spouse living; and
(2) No Government servant having a spouse living, shall enter into, or
contract, a marriage with any person:
Provided that the Central Government may permit a Government servant to
enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) or
clause (2), if it is satisfied that ­
(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such
Government servant and the other party to the marriage; and
(b) there are other grounds for so doing.
(3) A Government servant who has married or marries a person other than
of Indian nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Government.
The first point to be scrutinized when an application for permission is received, is
whether such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to the
applicant. If so, the question arises whether there are sufficient grounds for
allowing an exception to Government’s general policy. The alleged grounds given
in support of the request should be scrutinized to see whether the allegations are
true and well­founded. In case the wife also joins the applicant, it should be
ascertained whether she has willingly consented and whether any letter etc.,
purporting to proceed from her is genuine and is the outcome of her own free will.
For this purpose, higher officers in the department concerned may, if necessary
send for the applicant and his wife and make personal enquiries. Where the first
wife’s views have not been stated, they should, if possible, be ascertained. If
permission is sought on grounds of alleged sickness of the wife, as much
information as possible should be obtained in consultation with the medical
authorities. The arrangements made by the husband for the maintenance of the
first wife should also be ascertained and it should examined whether they are
satisfactory.
It is requested that the procedure suggested should be brought to the notice of all
the subordinate authorities who may have occasion to deal with such cases.
[MHA OM No. 219/51­Ests. dated 16.02.1955]
(2) Inclusion of a provision in all rules of recruitment to the effect that the
restrictions against bigamy will apply to female Government servants also.

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 9
 The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 have now been amended by
incorporating therein the following further provision as rule 18 (2) (now rule 21) :­
"No female Government shall marry any person who has a wife living
without first obtaining the permission of Government."
2. The above principle should govern the recruitment and conditions of service of
central Government servants. Accordingly, a provision to the effect that no female
candidate who has married a person having already a wife living, will be eligible
for recruitment to a service or post unless Government specially exempt such a
candidate from the operation of this provision, may be added by the Ministries
etc., in rules or orders relating to recruitment to services and posts with which
they are concerned. [MHA OM No. 25/5/55­Ests., dated 31.05.1956]
(3) Form of declaration to be obtained from new entrants regarding their
having one or more than one wife.
Attention is invited to paragraph 3 of this Ministry’s Office Memorandum No. 219­
51­Ests., dated the 16th October, 1954 regarding plural marriage of Government
servants. It was prescribed therein that candidates for employment should be
asked to indicate whether they had more than one wife living and that, if it
transpired that a declaration in the negative given by a Government servant was
incorrect, he would be liable to be dismissed from service. A model form for
obtaining a declaration from new entrants is attached to this Office
Memorandum. It will be seen that the declaration will apply to new entrants of
both sexes. It is, accordingly, requested that necessary instructions may be given
to appointing authorities under the control of the Ministry of Finance, etc. that a
declaration as in the attached form should be obtained from every entrants to
Government service hereafter. [MHA OM No. 25/52/57­Ests.(A), dated
02.01.1958]
12. It is thus clear from the above Rules and the relevant circulars referred above

that if a married Government employee has given matrimonial advertisement

before divorce (the appellant in this case) it would be an attempt to commit crime of

bigamy. This should have been a matter of serious concern for the public authority

which did not take seriously. If the such advertisement is made, it has to be further

investigated by the department, which PIO failed to inform.

13. The Government Employee is expected to behave properly, without

committing crimes against women including crimes relating to dowry, cruelty and

bigamy or attempt to bigamy, sexual harassment both at office and home. If there

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 10
is any complaint with the content reflecting the allegations above, it is the duty of

public authority to initiate preliminary inquiry based on which the disciplinary

proceedings shall be initiated. Not doing the same will amount to allow its

employees to commit crimes against women especially against wives with all

impunity. The action against their employees according to Civil Conduct Rules is a

separate stream that has nothing to do with criminal or civil proceedings initiated by

wife or complainant against the public servant. It is the responsibility of public

authority not to be represented by such employees with criminal tendencies or

those who attempt to commit crimes against their own families or at least act

against them. Corruption does not mean monitory bribery alone, it also include

dowry, harassment, non­maintenance of wife and children reflecting irresponsibility

of a person who does not deserve to represent the Government in public. Besides,

inaction of PIO and suppression of information to the victims of such employee is a

crime under RTI Act, 2005.

Carrying Private trade and business:

14. A public servant cannot carry on his own private business and trade unless he

gok permission from the government as provided under Rule 15 of Central Civil

Service(Conduct Rules)1964,and the same is also an offence under secton 168 of

Indian Penal Code.

Section 168 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 :Public servant unlawfully

engaging in trade.—Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally

bound as such public servant not to engage in trade, engages in trade,

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 11
 shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to

one year, or with fine, or with both.

Rule 15 of CCS Rules : Private trade or employment: (1) Subject to the

provisions of sub­rule (2), no Government servant shall, except with the previous
sanction of the Government­
(a) engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business, or
(b) negotiate for, or undertake, any other employment, or
(c) hold an elective office, or canvass for a candidate or candidates for an
elective office, in any body, whether incorporated or not, or
(d) canvass in support of any business of insurance agency, commission agency,
etc., owned or managed by any member of his family, or
(e) take part except in the discharge of his official duties, in the registration,
promotion or management of any bank or other company registered or required
to be registered, under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law for
the time being in force, or of any co­operative society for commercial purposes.
(f) participate in or associate himself in any manner in the making of­
(i) a sponsored media (radio or television) programme; or
(ii) a media programme commissioned by Government media but produced by a
private agency; or
(iii) a privately produced media programme including video magazine:
Provided that no previous permission shall be necessary in case where the
Government servant participates in a programme produced or commissioned by
Government media in his official capacity.
(2) A Government servant may, without the previous sanction of the
Government,­
(a) undertake honorary work of a social or charitable nature, or
(b) undertake occasional work of a literary, artistic or scientific character, or
(c) participate in sports activities as an amateur, or
(d) take part in the registration, promotion or management (not involving the
holding of an elective office) of a literary, scientific or charitable society or of a
club or similar organisation, the aims or objects of which relate to promotion of
sports, cultural or recreational activities, registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or any other law for the time being in force, or
(e) take part in the registration, promotion or management (not involving the
holding of elective office) of a co­operative society substantially for the benefit of
Government servants, registered under the Co­operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of
1912), or any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that ­
(i) he shall discontinue taking part in such activities, if so directed by the
Government; and
(ii) in a case falling under clause (d) or clause(e) of this sub­rule, his official
duties shall not suffer thereby and he shall, within a period of one month of his

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 12
 taking part in such activity, report to the Government giving details of the nature
of his participation.
(3) Every Government servant shall report to the Government if any member of
his family is engaged in a trade or business or owns or manages an insurance
agency or commission agency.
(4) Unless otherwise provided by general or special orders of the Government,
no Government servant may accept any fee for any work done by him for any
private or public body or any private person without the sanction of the prescribed
authority.
EXPLANATION­ The term 'fee' used here shall have the meaning assigned to it in
Fundamental Rule 9 (6­A).
Office memorandum of Ministry of Finance also provide that acceptance of part­

time employment of Government servants after office hours ordinarily not

to be allowed, restated as under:

“1. Instances have come to notice in which Government servants have been
allowed to accept regular part­time employment in other Government, quasi­
Government or private institutions. Such employment, even though it is outside
office hours, is contrary to the principle embodied in rule 12 of the Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (now Rule 15), prohibiting engagement in any
trade or undertaking of any employment by a Government servant other than his
public duties. It may result in some deterioration in his efficiency because if he
does part­time work in addition to his full working hours in his office, he may not
get sufficient time for rest and recreation and will, therefore, be unable to give
undivided attention to his work even during office hours. Moreover, such part­time
work by Government servants leads generally to depriving unemployed people of
work which they would otherwise have got.
2. Having regard to all these consideration, it has been decided that while the
competent authority may permit a Government servant under S.R. 11 to
undertake work of a casual or occasional character, a whole time Government
servant should not ordinarily be allowed to accept any part­time employment
whether under Government or elsewhere, even though such employment may be
after office hours. In rare cases where it is proposed to give permission to a
Government servant to accept part­time employment, prior sanction of
Government should be obtained. In this connection a reference is also invited to
the Ministry of Finance, Office memorandum No. F.10(94)­E­II(B)/58 dated 13th
September, 1958 on the subject (Decision No. 6).
3. In so far as the personnel serving in the Audit and Accounts Department are
concerned, these orders have been issued after consultation with the Comptroller
and Auditor General.
[MHA OM No. 25/42/58­Ests.(A), dated 16.10.1958]

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 13
Exemption on disclosure of personal information:

15. Appellant from point no 4­7 has asked for the detail of movable and immovable

property, income tax return and his annual property returns for the last five years,

which respondent has negligently and malafidely denied without providing specific

reason for it.

16. Detail of movable and immovable property is contained in the Income Tax

return itself, the discloser of which is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the Act as

held by the Supreme court in the case of Girish Ramchandrs Deshpande v.

Central Information Commission(SLP (civil)No. 27734 of 2012). Operative

portion of the judgment is as under:

12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and
censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also
details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his
investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions.
Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the
third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of
his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns
of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is
whether the above­mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal
information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called
for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show
cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal
information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The
performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter
between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are
governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal
information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or
public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 14
 unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if
the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of
the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the
disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the
petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal
information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section
8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate
Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information.

17. In number of cases viz. Hemant Kumar Jain v. Commissionerate of Income

Tax (CIT), Mumbai, Farida Hoosenally v. Chief Commissioer of Income Tax

Mumbai and J. S. Garg v. Ministry of Urban Development, the Commission

observed that the income­tax­return filed by the persons are personal information

of third parties and therefore these should not be disclosed under 8(1)(j) of the Act.

18. As far as the wife’s right over his husband information, who is a public

servant, where legal proceeding is pending before the court, the Commission

itself has clarified the situation in the case of Dr Dheeraj Kapoor v.

Directorate of Health Services GNCTD, Delhi (File

No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000494), stating:

9…..Before deciding the nature of information sought in this case, one more
complication need to be addressed, i.e., right of citizen seeking wife’s information
from public authority, who employed wife. The issue is privacy between spouses.
The RTI Act did not give any specific or special exemption to share personal
information with the spouses. As far as RTI Act is concerned there is no
difference between the spouse and citizen. Right to privacy is an individual right
and within the couple, each individual can claim or give up that right. Especially

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 15
 when spouses are entangled in legal disputes such as marital claims or cruelty
charges, the privacy of individual spouse assumes importance in the context of
demand for information. When the spouse does not consent to give information,
the courts of law have to examine the need and then direct the other party to
disclose if justified. For instance in maintenance petition by one spouse against
the other, the court of law has to examine the claims, income and expenditure of
both the spouses and direct accordingly in order to decide the issue and amount
of maintenance.”

Right to information of spouse:

19. Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, imposed a mandate to disclose among other things

the salary of the public servants. To that extent i.e., income as salary of public

servant is not personal or private information. Spouse or any other person can ask

for it. In above referred cases, some documents like IT Returns, pay­slip which

explain deductions and loans were declared as personal or third party information.

The privacy of public servant and right of spouse to information was explained by

the Delhi High Court recently in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma

(FAO 369/1996 decided on 14th January 2015), (Available on http://www.the­

laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/ShowCase.aspx?CaseId=104102482300). The

Delhi High court has directed (in paragraph 19):

“19.2 The affidavit of assets, income and expenditure of both the parties are
necessary to determine the rights of the parties under Sections 24 to 27 of the
Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, should be filed by both the parties at the very
threshold in order to curb the delay and expedite the trial in terms of Section 21­B
of the Hindu Marriage Act. 19.7 The Court may also call upon the parties of to file
such an affidavit in pending cases of maintenance if the parties have not already
disclosed their true income.

19.12 The Court shall ensure that the filing of the affidavits by the parties is not
reduced to a mere ritual or formality. The Court shall scrutinize the affidavit
threadbare and may decline to take the same on record unless it contains
complete particulars mentioned Annexure A and is accompanied by the
documents mentioned therein.

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 16
 19.14 If a party has made concealment or false statement in his/her affidavit, the
opposite party shall disclose the particulars of the same in his/her response on
affidavit along with the material to show concealment or false statement. The
aggrieved party may also seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories
and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order
XI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

19.15 Whenever a party discloses sufficient material to show concealment or

false statement in the affidavit of the opposite party, the Court may consider
examining the deponent of the affidavit under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to
elicit the truth. In appropriate cases, the Court may direct a party to file an
additional affidavit relating to his assets, income and expenditure at the time of
marriage and/or one year before separation and/or at the time of separation.

19.16 If the statements made in affidavit of assets, income and expenditure are
found to be incorrect, the Court shall consider its effect while fixing the
maintenance. However, action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is ordinarily not
warranted in matrimonial litigation till the decision of the main petition.

19.20 The aforesaid procedure be followed in all cases relating to maintenance

including cases under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956,
Special Marriage Act, 1954 Indian Divorce Act, 1869 as well as Section 125
Cr.P.C.

24. This Court is of the view that filing of affidavit of assets, income, expenditure
and liabilities by both the parties in the prescribed format at the very threshold of
matrimonial litigation as in developed countries would enable the Courts to pass
maintenance order within 60 days in terms of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and therefore should be incorporated in all the matrimonial statutes.

20. Earlier, the Delhi High Court in Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney (2011
(183) DLT 403, in paragraph 7), dealing with a matrimonial appeal directed both the
spouses to file their respective affidavits of assets, income and expenditure from
the date of the marriage up to this date containing the following particulars:—

7.1 Personal Information

(i) Educational qualifications.
(ii) Professional qualifications.
(iii) Present occupation.
(iv) Particulars of past occupation,
(v) Members of the family.

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 17
 (a) Dependent.
(b) Independent.
7.2 Income
(i) Salary, if in service.
(ii) Income from business/profession, if self employed.
(iii) Particulars of all earnings since marriage.
(iv) Income from other sources:—
(a) Rent.
(b) Interest on bank deposits and FDRs.
(c) Other interest i.e. on loan, deposits, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office
schemes, PPF etc.
(d) Dividends.
(e) Income from machinery, plant or furniture let on hire.
(f) Gifts and Donations.
(g) Profit on sale of movable/immovable assets.
(h) Any other income not covered above.
7.3 Assets
(i) Immovable properties:—
(a) Building in the name of self and its Fair Market Value (FMV):—­
Residential, Commercial, Mortgage, Given on rent, Others.
(b) Plot/land.
(c) Leasehold property.
(d) Intangible property e.g. patents, trademark, design, goodwill.
(e) Properties in the name of family members/HUF and their FMV.
(ii) Movable properties:—
(a) Furniture and fixtures.
(b) Plant and Machinery.
(c) Livestock.
(d) Vehicles i.e. car, scooter along with their brand and registration
number.
(iii) Investments:—
(a) Bank Accounts ­ Current or Savings.
(b) Demat Accounts.
(c) Cash.
(d) FDRs, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF etc.
(e) Stocks, shares, debentures, bonds, units and mutual funds.
(f) LIC policy.
(g) Deposits with Government and Non­Government entities.
(h) Loan given to friends, relatives and others.
(i) Telephone, mobile phone and their numbers.
(j) TV, Fridge, Air Conditioner, etc.
(k) Other household appliances.
(l) Computer, Laptop.

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 18
 (m) Other electronic gadgets including I­pad etc.
(n) Gold, silver and diamond Jewellery.
(o) Silver Utensils.
(p) Capital in partnership firm, sole proprietorship firm
(q) Shares in the Company in which Director.
(r) Undivided share in HUF property.
(s) Booking of any plot, flat, membership in Co­op. Group Housing
Society.
(t) Other investments not covered by above items.
(iv) Any other assets not covered above.
7.4 Liabilities
(i) OD, CC, Term Loan from bank and other institutions.
(ii) Personal/business loan
(a) Secured.
(b) Unsecured.
(iii) Home loan.
(iv) Income Tax, Wealth Tax and Property Tax.
7.5 Expenditure
(i) Rent and maintenance including electricity, water and gas.
(ii) Lease rental, if any asset taken on hire.
(iii) Installment of any house loan, car loan, personal loan, business
loan, etc.
(iv) Interest to bank or others.
(v) Education of children including tuition fee.
(vi) Conveyance including fuel, repair and maintenance of vehicle.
Also give the average distance travelled every day.
(vii) Premium of LIC, Medi­claim, house and vehicle policy.
(viii) Premium of ULIP, Mutual Fund.
(ix) Contribution to PPF, EPF, approved superannuation fund.
(x) Mobile/landline phone bills.
(xi) Club subscription and usage, subscription to news papers,
periodicals, magazines, etc.
(xii) Internet charges/cable charges.
(xiii) Household expenses including kitchen, clothing, etc.
(xiv) Salary of servants, gardener, watchmen, etc.
(xv) Medical/hospitalization expenses.
(xvi) Legal/litigation expenses.
(xvii) Expenditure on dependent family members.
(xviii) Expenditure on entertainment.
(xix) Expenditure on travel including outstation/foreign travel,
business as well as personal
(xx) Expenditure on construction/renovation and furnishing of
residence/office.

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 19
 (xxi) Any other expenditure not covered above.

7.6 General Information regarding Standard of Living and

Lifestyle
(i) Status of family members.
(ii) Credit/debit cards.
(iii) Expenditure on marriage including marriage of family members.
(iv) Expenditure on family functions including birthday of the
children.
(v) Expenditure on festivals.
(vi) Expenditure on extra­curricular activities.
(vii) Destination of honeymoon.
(viii) Frequency of travel including outstation/foreign travel, business
as well as personal.
(ix) Mode of travel in city/outside city.
(x) Mode of outstation/foreign travel including type of class.
(xi) Category of hotels used for stay, official as well as personal,
including type of rooms.
(xii) Category of hospitals opted for medical treatment including
type of rooms.
(xiii) Name of school(s) where the child or children are studying.
(xiv) Brand of vehicle, mobile and wrist watch.
(xv) Value of jewellery worn.
(xvi) Details of residential accommodation.
(xvii) Value of gifts received.
(xviii) Value of gifts given at family functions.
(xix) Value of donations given.
(xx) Particulars of credit card/debit card, its limit and usage.
(xxi) Average monthly withdrawal from bank.
(xxii) Type of restaurant visited for dining out.
(xxiii) Membership of clubs, societies and other associations.
(xxiv) Brand of alcohol, if consumed.
(xxv) Particulars of all pending as well as decided cases including
civil, criminal, labour, income tax, excise, property tax, MACT, etc.
with parties name.

Both the parties are also directed to file, along with affidavit, copies of the
documents relating to their assets, income and expenditure from the date of
the marriage up to this date and more particularly the following:—

(i) Relevant documents with respect to income including Salary

certificate, Form 16A, Income Tax Returns, certificate from the
employer regarding cost to the company, balance sheet, etc.

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 20
 (ii) Audited accounts, if deponent is running business and
otherwise, non­audited accounts i.e. balance sheets, profit and loss
account and capital account.
(iii) Statement of all bank accounts.
(iv) Statement of Demat accounts.
(v) Passport.
(vi) Credit cards.
(vii) Club membership cards.
(viii) Frequent Flyer cards.
(ix) PAN card.
(x) Applications seeking job, in case of unemployed person.

21. Through this judgment the Delhi High Court has laid down a comprehensive

right to information of spouses between themselves, especially when they are in

dispute. This right is available to spouses whether they are in public service or not.

This responsibility is higher on the public servants. Section 2(f) defines information

to include any information related right as per the law in force. This judgment of

High Court is the law until the legislature enacted a statute imposing legal

obligation on spouses to file details of income and assets in affidavit form. The

Court in the above cases said that the right to maintenance is a basic human right.

This human right cannot be implemented if there is no disclosure of vital

information. Thus, basing on the erudite judgment of the court, the Commission

holds that every spouse has a right to information about income, assets,

investments, etc from the other spouse regarding the claim of maintenance from

the other spouse whether employed by Government or not based on the principles

of contract of marriage, various marriage laws, law of maintenance as interpreted

by the courts of law, including Jan 14 decision of Delhi High Court. The information

listed under paragraph 7 in the judgment of Delhi High Court in Puneet Kaur v.

Inderjit Singh Sawhney (2011 (183) DLT 403) (http://indiankanoon.

org/doc/153453675/) is no more private or personal information as against

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 21
spouses, even if that information could be personal or private information as

against any person other than spouse. Though such information falls under

category of private information under Section 8(1)(j) generally, the information

about a spouse happened to be public servant sought by an victimized spouse

shall be disclosed in larger public interest, which was profoundly established by the

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in two landmark judgments referred above. The proviso

to Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act entitled the

appellant to information which she sought because of overwhelming public interest

in securing the lives of deserted wives.

22. It is settled law of the land that the decision laid down by the High Court is

binding on the courts subordinate to it, tribunals and other authority of the

jurisdiction in which High Court runs as High Court has the power of

superintendence over them under article 227 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of

Customs[AIR 1962 SC 1893] observed –

We therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest court in the state is
binding on authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot
ignore it.

23. The Apex Court reiterated the afore­stated position in Baradakanta Mishra v.

Bhimsen Dixit [AIR 1972 SC 2466] saying that it would be anomalous to suggest

that a Tribunal over which a High Court has superintendence can ignore the law

declared by it and if a Tribunal can do so, all the subordinate courts can equally do

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 22
so, for there is no specific provision as in respect of Supreme Court, making the

law declared by the High Court binding on subordinate Courts. The court further

observed that it is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior

Tribunal that all the Tribunals subject to its supervision should confirm to the law

laid down by it. If the Tribunals defy their jurisdictional High Court, there would be

confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer.

24. In Kusum Sharma case referred above (Jan 14, 2015), the Delhi High Court

stated that the maintenance is not merely a legal right but it is part and parcel of

basic human right. Depending on the financial conditions and non­availability of

support from parents, when husband does not maintain his wife, it challenges her

right to live, and thus information related to maintenance becomes life related

information. In this case, the appellant alleged that she lost 15 kilos weight as she

was not given food for 15 days by the husband, who took lot of dowry wealth from

the parents in law. The allegation that he advertised for second wife during the

sustenance of his marriage with first wife, which is being investigated into is proof

of the fact that he neglected his wife. It proves prima facie that he was not

maintaining his wife. The public authority did not go into these questions, and the

PIO did not bother to give her information asked for in reasonable period.

Decision:

25. The Commission thus holds that

a. the spouses have right to information between them as listed by Delhi High

Court in paragraph 20 above.

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 23
 b. The husband in this case, has a duty to provide all that information listed

above to his wife, and the appellant wife has right to information as

established by Delhi High Court based on rights of marriage as provided by

various statutes of family law. who he is not maintaining and public

authority has authority and power to enforce that duty, which is supported

by the CCS Rules.

c. Though certain documents like annual returns of assets, investments, IT

returns etc were earlier declared as private/ personal or third party

information, as far as spouses are concerned they are not private or

personal or third party information between them, in the context of marital

disputes especially for maintenance purposes.

d. The PIO’s cannot reject the request for such information, if filed by

spouses, on the ground of Section 8(1)(j) saying it is personal information,

because the protection of privacy is overridden by the huge public interest

in maintaining wives, as provided in the proviso to exception 8(1)(j). The

larger public interest in maintenance of wives and children, prevention of

domestic violence, etc., for the purposes of the disclosure of such

information, which was strongly established by the Delhi High Court in two

landmark judgments referred above.

e. The information related income details in the context of non­maintenance of

the spouse, becomes the life related information which should be given

within 48 hours according to proviso to Section 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005.

26. Hence, in exercise of powers under Section 19(8)(a), the Commission require

the PIO and General Manager (HR) to be personally present before the

Commission on 2th March 2015 at 2.30 pm to show cause and explain why

maximum penalty cannot be imposed and recommendation for disciplinary action

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 24
cannot be made for a) suppression of information, b) giving incomplete information

etc, and in his capacity as HR Manger explain how far he implemented the

proclaimed HR policy in accordance with the Conduct rules referred, and also with

reference to Mr. Sameer, an employee about whom the appellant filed an RTI. The

Commission also require the General Manager (HR) to inform details of

disciplinary action initiated against the employee, if any, and if not, the reasons for

not initiating especially when the wife’s RTI application revealed serious charges of

attempt or commission of crime of dowry, bigamy and also an offence under

Information Technology Act 2000. The denial of information on excuses and delay

in furnishing information would amount to denial of maintenance of wife by her

husband who is a public servant.

27. The Commission directs Mr. Sameer, the public servant to appear before the

Commission on 2th March 2015 at 2.30 pm to explain why maximum penalty cannot

be imposed against him for obstructing the furnishing of information to the

appellant.

28. The Commission directs the PIO to explain why appropriate compensation or

costs cannot be imposed on the public authority to be paid to the appellant, whose

right to information about her right to maintenance was violated because of delay.

29. The Commission directs the PIO to furnish the correct, complete and truthful

information point­wise to the appellant on points no 1,2,3,4 & 8 along with

necessary certified copies, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 25
and report the compliance of the same before the Commission on 2 th March 2015

at 2.30 pm.

30. The appeal is disposed with the above direction; compliance and penalty

proceedings will continue.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy

(Babu Lal)
Dy. Registrar

Address of the parties

1. The CPIO
Delhi Transco Limited
HR Department
5th Floor
Shakti Sadan
Kotla Road
New Delhi

2. Ms. Prashansa Sharma

116351 East Rohtas Nagar
Delhi 110 032

(CIC/SA/A/2014/000433) Page 26