Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Income Tax Act’s Primacy Over RTI in Information Disclosure: Delhi High Court Quashes CIC Order on RTI

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that directed the disclosure of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, emphasizing the primacy of the Income Tax Act over the RTI Act in matters of information disclosure about an assessee.

The core legal issue in this case revolved around the conflict between the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, Central Public Information Officer, challenged the CIC’s order, which mandated the disclosure of information under the RTI Act. The information pertained to the application for exemption/deduction under Section 80G(2)(b) for donations to SHRI RAM JANMABHOOMI TEERTH KSHETRA.

The respondent filed an RTI application seeking various documents related to SHRI RAM JANMABHOOMI TEERTH KSHETRA’s application for tax exemption/deduction. The information was initially denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and the CIC’s subsequent order to disclose the information led to this legal challenge.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, in his judgment, underscored the necessity of adhering to the legal provisions of the Income Tax Act, which restrict the disclosure of information about an assessee. The court highlighted that Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act takes precedence over the RTI Act, requiring the satisfaction of specified authorities before disclosing such information. The judgment also emphasized the legal obligation to follow judicial hierarchy and precedents set by larger benches and the Apex Court.

The High Court quashed the CIC order allowing the disclosure under the RTI Act, affirming the overriding effect of the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, the court noted that it is open for the respondent to approach the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act to seek the requested information.

Date of Decision: 28 February 2024

Central Public Information Officer vs. Kailash Chandra Moondra

Latest Legal News