In a recent judgment, the Rajasthan High Court confirmed that a wife has no automatic right to access her husband’s salary records through a Right to Information (RTI) request.
The case arose after a woman filed an RTI application seeking copies of her husband’s pay slips and details of his earnings for specific months while he was employed with the police in Bhilwara. The department refused her request, saying these records were personal information of a third party and exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This denial was upheld by the Rajasthan State Information Commission.
Undeterred, the wife challenged the rejection before the High Court. However, the Court led by Justice Kuldeep Mathur found no error in the authorities’ decision to withhold the information. The bench observed that salary details and pay slips are personal financial information that generally fall within the employer-employee relationship and do not, by themselves, relate to any public activity or public interest that would justify disclosure. In coming to this conclusion, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier interpretation of “personal information” in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. and dismissed the wife’s petition as meritless.
Interestingly, in the past the Central Information Commission has taken a different stance in certain situations. On occasions, the CIC has directed departments to provide a spouse with income details where those details were necessary for pending maintenance or matrimonial proceedings, and upon verification of the marriage and legal need. In one such decision, the commission held that income information relevant to maintenance claims shouldn’t be denied purely on privacy grounds.
RTI cannot be used as a tool for private curiosity and a spouse cannot claim an unfettered right to a partner’s earnings simply because they’re married.If the information being sought is essential to a legal process such as maintenance proceedings, authorities like the CIC have acknowledged circumstances where disclosure may be justified. Public interest remains the touchstone and spirit of the Right to Information Statute unless the requester can show a genuine public interest that outweighs privacy concerns (e.g., exposing corruption), personal financial details will generally stay protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling underscores a growing judicial insistence that the Right to Information Act is not a substitute for personal litigation strategy. By refusing to allow a spouse to access salary details under RTI, the Court reinforces the principle that transparency in governance does not dissolve individual privacy merely because the individual happens to be a public servant. Financial information, even when held by a state authority, does not automatically transform into “public information” in the absence of demonstrable public interest.
However, the decision also exposes a structural tension within Indian law. While privacy is constitutionally protected after Puttaswamy Judgment, matrimonial and maintenance disputes often hinge on accurate disclosure of income area where concealment is common. If RTI is closed as a route, the burden shifts entirely to family courts to ensure effective financial disclosure through procedural safeguards. Without strong enforcement mechanisms in matrimonial proceedings, denying RTI access may inadvertently disadvantage economically weaker spouses.
Ultimately, the judgment strengthens the privacy framework but also highlights the need for more robust and transparent income-disclosure mechanisms within family law litigation itself. The balance between dignity, privacy, and financial fairness remains delicate and far from conclusively settled.
