The Aryavarth Express
Agency(New Delhi): In a significant development on Friday, the Delhi High Court called upon the Income Tax department to present its viewpoint regarding an appeal. This appeal contests a prior ruling that had annulled the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) directive for the disclosure of details concerning the PM CARES Fund to an RTI applicant. The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora has scheduled the next hearing for July 10, after instructing the IT department’s legal counsel to submit written arguments.
The appeal under consideration stemmed from a January 22 decision by a single judge of the high court. This decision revoked the CIC’s order, which had mandated the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Income Tax department to provide information requested by Girish Mittal concerning the PM CARES Fund. The single judge’s ruling highlighted that Mittal had sought information from the CPIO and not directly from the PM CARES Fund, emphasizing that the Income Tax department does not recognize the PM CARES Fund as an authority under its jurisdiction.
This ruling was in response to a petition from the Income Tax authority challenging the CIC’s directive issued on April 27, 2022. The judge pointed out that the request involved third-party information, necessitating a hearing for the PM CARES Fund. The judge also noted the procedural requirements under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which were not adhered to before ordering the disclosure of the requested information.
Furthermore, the judge remarked that the jurisdiction to mandate the disclosure of information under Section 138 of the IT Act did not lie with the CIC. This section strictly controls the release of information related to an assessee, requiring the approval of high-ranking Income Tax officials.
Mittal’s RTI application sought details on exemption applications related to the PM CARES Fund and other exemptions filed with the Income Tax Authority from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The IT department contended that the CIC’s refusal to provide information on other exemption applications, while directing disclosure regarding the PM CARES Fund, was legally unsound.
The petition argued for a consistent application of law, referencing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which permits withholding personal information not pertinent to public interest or that which could infringe on individual privacy.
The case also touched upon the nature of the PM CARES Fund as a third party, emphasizing the necessity of its involvement in any decision regarding information disclosure. The fund, a registered trust, is argued to be under the government’s ownership and control. Mittal’s initial request was denied on the grounds of privacy concerns and the assertion that the PM CARES Fund falls outside the RTI Act’s scope. After his appeal was rejected, Mittal turned to the CIC, which limited its directive to providing information specifically related to the PM CARES Fund, excluding other exemption applications due to privacy considerations.