No information under RTI Act for private lawsuits, says UPSIC
The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission has ruled that a son-in-law is not entitled to access his father-in-law’s personal information — like salary, loans and movable and immovable properties — under the RTI Act.
State Information Commissioner Mohammed Nadeem, in an order dated January 7, said, “The objective of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.” The matter pertains to Kulwant Singh, who sought details of the financial status of his father-in-law, Rishipal Singh, who had retired as a revenue inspector, as he wanted to use the information in a dowry case filed by his wife.
Kulwant Singh had filed the application under the RTI Act on July 27, 2025, with the Tehsildar of Najibabad in Bijnor district, seeking information related to his father-in-law till his retirement on January 1, 2015.
Upon not receiving the information, the applicant filed an appeal with the State Information Commission, requesting that the Public Information Officer be directed to provide the requested information. According to sources, Kulwant was accused by his wife of demanding a dowry of Rs 26 lakh, following which he filed an RTI application seeking details of his father-in-law’s financial status, including his salary, GPF (general provident fund), loans, advances, and details of his movable and immovable property.
He argued that the person whose details were being sought was not an outsider but his father-in-law, and secondly, this information was crucial for him in the dowry-related case to determine whether the person who allegedly gave Rs 26 lakh as dowry actually had the financial capacity to do so. Hearing the case, the bench of Information Commissioner Mohammad Nadeem said that the Supreme Court has clarified in several important judgments that salary details, income tax records, provident fund, loans, family details and property-related information clearly fall under the category of personal information, which cannot generally be provided under the RTI Act.
“Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the argument of being a son-in-law or seeking information for use in a lawsuit cannot be considered a larger public interest under the RTI Act,” the bench said, and clarified that the “objective of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.” The bench stated that if the applicant deems it necessary to collect such information for his defence, the appropriate forum would be the court where his case is pending. He can obtain all this information from the department concerned through legal means before the court. And if the court deems it necessary, it can order the relevant department to provide all this information. The bench stated that it does not find the ordering of all this information at its own level to be in line with the spirit of the Right to Information Act, and it dismissed the appeal on this basis.
