Court dismisses appeal seeking disclosure of wife’s service records citing lack of public interest and pending matrimonial disputes
In a significant judgment delivered on July 6, 2026, the Uttarakhand High Court (Division Bench) dismissed an appeal filed by Mr. Vijendra Kumar seeking information about his wife’s employment under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The appellant had requested details pertaining to the service record of respondent no.4, who is an Assistant Teacher at a Government Junior High School, citing public interest amid allegations of manipulated appointments. However, the court upheld the decision of the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) to withhold the information, emphasizing the right to privacy of the third party — the wife.
The facts revealed that matrimonial disputes between the appellant and respondent no.4 were pending before the Family Court, and the wife had vehemently opposed the RTI application, stating the appellant’s motives were ulterior and aimed at harassment. The PIO initially rejected the RTI request based on her objection. The appellant’s subsequent appeals, including the writ petition challenging the CIC’s order, were also dismissed.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, analyzed the case in light of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act. These provisions empower the PIO to deny disclosure of information that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of a third party unless overriding public interest is demonstrated. The court found no prima facie evidence to substantiate the appellant’s claim that the wife’s appointment was secured through manipulation, despite reference to an ongoing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) concerning similar allegations against other candidates.
The court noted the absence of any material indicating public interest sufficient to override the respondent’s right to privacy. It also underscored the history of the appellant filing frivolous complaints against the respondent, which had caused her mental harassment. Observing that the family disputes were ongoing, the court held that the authorities acted within their discretion in denying the disclosure.
This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to balancing the right to information with the protection of individual privacy, especially in sensitive personal matters intertwined with matrimonial discord. It serves as a precedent on how courts may approach third-party information requests under the RTI Act where privacy concerns and public interest claims collide.
Bottom Line:
Right to Information Act - Information pertaining to third party's employment - Objection by the third party and pending matrimonial disputes between appellant and third party considered - Right to privacy outweighs absence of public interest in disclosure of information.
Statutory provision(s):
Right to Information Act, 2005 Sections 8(1)(j), 11
Vijendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2939615
