CIC Rules Out Disclosure of Personal Info under RTI in Matrimonial Dispute, Questions SHCIL CPIO
The central information commission (CIC) disposed of two second appeals on 2 September 2025, filed by RTI applicant Deepak Sharma against the central public information officer (CPIO) of the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited (SHCIL), Mumbai, denying his request for details linked to an e-stamp certificate allegedly used by his wife, in a matrimonial dispute.
 
Central information commissioner Anandi Ramalingam upheld the CPIO’s decision to deny information because Mr Sharma was seeking personal information of his wife as well as of the first claimant of the e-stamp certificate, disclosure of which is banned under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Mr Sharma sought details of an e-stamp certificate (No. IN-DL62726792xxxxxxV), dated 14 February 2023, claiming that his wife was using it in the legal proceedings concerning their matrimonial dispute.
 
Mr Sharma argued that every citizen has a right to verify whether proper stamp duty has been paid on registered or notarised documents, since e-stamp certificates are official government records. He also demanded the account details of the e-stamp vendor in Delhi in order to confirm the registration of the e-certificate. 
 
The CPIO, in a reply dated 5 September 2024, had denied the request on the grounds that Mr Sharma was neither the first nor the second party to the agreement. “Since you are not a party to the said e-stamp certificate, we are unable to provide you the requisite information/documents,” was the reply.
 
Mr Sharma filed a first appeal stating that the reply was incomplete and misleading but the first appellate authority (FAA) upheld the CPIO’s decision.
 
Mr Sharma’s second RTI application related to one Ghanshyam, who was linked to the same e-stamp certificate, along with certified copies of the document. Mr Sharma’s grievance was that the agreement submitted by his wife was fraudulent since the supposed first party, Ghanshyam, had died in 2019. He argued that the requested information was crucial to his ongoing court case.
 
CIC Ramalingam, in her order observed and cited several Supreme Court rulings—including CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2010), Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam (2009), and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC (2013) – which clarify that personal information unrelated to public activity or interest cannot be disclosed under RTI.
 
CIC Ramalingam reiterated that even RTI applicant Sharma’s request about details of Ghansyam, the first party to the agreement, was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j). However, she noted with concern, that the CPIO had failed to provide a substantive response within the mandated timeframe and had also remained absent from the hearing.
 
CIC Ramalingam issued a show-cause notice to the CPIO asking why action should not be taken under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for dereliction of duty. The CPIO has been directed to file a written explanation within 20 days, along with comments from the FAA.
 
This is another case of conflict between an individual’s right to information and the protection of personal data under Section 8 of the RTI Act. 
 
Excerpts from the Supreme Court order used by CIC Ramalingam: 
“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental, and psychological status, marks obtained, grades, and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied…”
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
Comments
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback