Introduction:

The Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Kanta Kumawat v State of Rajasthan and Others 2026 LiveLaw Raj 71 examined an important question concerning the scope of personal information under the Right to Information Act and the extent to which a spouse can access salary details of a government employee through the statutory transparency mechanism. The petitioner Smt. Kanta Kumawat had filed an application under the Right to Information Act seeking copies of pay slips and details of salary paid to her husband who was employed in a department under the State of Rajasthan for a specified period. The department rejected her request on the ground that the information sought related to a third party and constituted personal information exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. Aggrieved by this denial, she approached the High Court challenging the order of the State authorities and contending that as a legally wedded wife she was entitled to know the financial details of her husband especially when such information could have bearing on her legal rights. The matter came up before Justice Kuldeep Mathur who was called upon to determine whether salary details of a government employee fall within the ambit of personal information and whether a spouse stands on a different footing from any other third party under the RTI framework. The case also required the Court to consider the balance between transparency in public administration and the fundamental right to privacy of an individual employee in the context of service jurisprudence.

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioner it was argued that the denial of information was arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the Right to Information Act which is aimed at promoting transparency and accountability in public authorities. It was submitted that the husband of the petitioner was a public servant drawing salary from the State exchequer and therefore the details of his salary could not be treated as purely private in nature. The petitioner contended that since public funds were involved, the information had a direct nexus with public activity and could not be withheld under the guise of privacy. It was further argued that being the legally wedded wife of the employee she had a legitimate interest in knowing his income details particularly for the purpose of safeguarding her matrimonial and maintenance rights. According to her, the information was necessary to protect her civil interests and could not be equated with a request made by a stranger. The petitioner emphasized that the RTI Act does not impose any blanket prohibition on disclosure of salary information and that the exemption relating to personal information must be construed narrowly. She urged the Court to interpret the statute in a manner that advances transparency rather than restricts it. On the other hand the State authorities defended the rejection of the RTI application by asserting that the information sought was clearly personal information pertaining to a third party within the meaning of Section 8 of the RTI Act. It was contended that salary slips, service records and performance details of an employee are matters between the employer and the employee and are governed by service rules and regulations. The State submitted that disclosure of such information without consent would amount to invasion of privacy and was exempt unless a larger public interest was demonstrated. The respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v Central Information Commissioner and Others where it was held that service records, performance appraisal reports and related information of an employee are personal information and cannot be disclosed in the absence of overriding public interest. The State argued that the petitioner had not shown any element of public interest and that personal disputes between spouses cannot be converted into matters of public accountability under the RTI Act. It was also contended that the status of the petitioner as wife does not automatically entitle her to seek information through RTI as the Act treats all applicants equally and focuses on the nature of information rather than the identity of the seeker.

Judgment:

After considering the rival submissions, Justice Kuldeep Mathur upheld the order of the State refusing disclosure and dismissed the writ petition. The Court observed that there was no illegality or perversity in the decision of the authorities to treat the requested information as personal in nature. Relying upon the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v Central Information Commissioner and Others, the High Court reiterated that information relating to service matters of an employee including salary details, performance records and other service related documents falls within the expression personal information. Such information is primarily a matter between employer and employee and is regulated by applicable service rules. The Court emphasized that under the RTI Act personal information cannot be disclosed unless it has some relationship to a public activity or public interest or unless the authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure. In the present case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any overriding public interest warranting disclosure of her husband’s salary details. The Court noted that matrimonial disputes or personal grievances cannot be equated with public interest as contemplated under the RTI Act. The High Court further clarified that the mere fact that an employee draws salary from public funds does not automatically render all details of his remuneration open to public scrutiny under RTI. While transparency in public expenditure is important, the Act also recognizes the individual’s right to privacy which has been affirmed as a fundamental right. The Court underscored that the balance between transparency and privacy must be carefully maintained and that indiscriminate disclosure of service records could lead to unwarranted invasion of personal space. It was also observed that the petitioner has alternative remedies available under appropriate legal forums to seek financial information for enforcement of her matrimonial rights and that the RTI Act cannot be used as a substitute for such remedies. In light of these considerations, the Court concluded that the information sought squarely fell within the exemption relating to personal information of a third party and that the State was justified in denying the request. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the order of rejection was affirmed.