HC to refer judgements on petition against minister

The Bombay High Court today took on record few judgements in support of claim of former CIC Shailesh Gandhi that personal details can be revealed under RTI in public interest, on a petition filed by him seeking income tax details of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar.

The judgements were given by Gandhi to Justice Ranjit More who posted the matter for further hearing on November 28.

The judge said he would go through the judgements and hear both the sides on the next occasion.

Gandhi has urged the court to quash and set aside an order of Central Information Commission rejecting his plea to furnish copies of income tax returns of Ajit Pawar, who is the nephew of NCP president and Union minister Sharad Pawar.

Gandhi had sought information about NCP leader Ajit Pawar from Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Income Tax department on November 21 last year. However, the information was denied on the ground that it related to a third party.

In accordance with section 11 of RTI Act, 2005, a letter was issued to Pawar by the income tax authorities seeking his views on the issue. In reply, Pawar opposed the disclosure of any information.

The CPIO informed Gandhi that the information sought by him had no relationship to any public activity or interest and, therefore, it could not be supplied under provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of Right to Information Act.

Gandhi preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority, on the ground that the information he had requested formed part of public activity and hence section 8(1)(j) would not be applicable in the case. The appeal was rejected.

Gandhi contended that CPIO of income tax department had failed to test the disclosure of information requested, to the proviso to section 8(1) of RTI Act i.E., information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a state Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

Gandhi contended that in view of the Supreme Court's ruling, exemption under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be claimed since Pawar was an elected representative and was answerable to people. Disclosure of his income would be in larger public interest, he argued.