Husband Cannot Use RTI to Obtain Estranged Wife's Service Records, Uttarakhand HC Rules

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed an RTI special appeal by a husband seeking his estranged wife's service records, holding that unresolved matrimonial disputes and her harassment complaints negated any public interest claim.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, on 6 July 2026 dismissed a special appeal by Vijendra Kumar against his estranged wife, respondent no. 4, who serves as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Junior High School. Vijendra Kumar had sought her service records through the Right to Information Act. The Public Information Officer, the Chief Information Commissioner, and a Single Judge of the High Court had all refused to direct disclosure. The Division Bench agreed, finding no material on record to establish a public interest weighty enough to override her right to privacy.

The RTI Request and Its Rejection at Every Stage

Vijendra Kumar filed an application before the Public Information Officer seeking information relating to his wife's government service. Respondent no. 4 opposed the request, stating that he was acting with ulterior motives. She told the authorities that he had previously caused various complaints to be filed against her before different authorities, all of which were wholly frivolous and had caused her grave mental harassment.

The Public Information Officer rejected the application, taking the third-party objection into account. Vijendra Kumar appealed. When the appeal was not decided within the statutory timeline, he moved a second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner. The Chief Information Commissioner dismissed the second appeal by order dated 1 April 2026, in Appeal No. 44495/2025-26.

Vijendra Kumar then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging that order. A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 20 May 2026. The present special appeal arose from that dismissal.

Single Judge's Reasoning on Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11

The Single Judge examined Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the Right to Information Act. Section 8(1)(j) exempts from disclosure personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or whose disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Section 11 governs the procedure where information relates to a third party who has objected to its disclosure, empowering the Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer to decide whether disclosure is appropriate.

Applying these provisions, the Single Judge held that where information is sought in respect of a third party and that third party objects, the information officer has the discretion to decline. Given that the matrimonial dispute between the parties was pending before the Family Court and the relationship was admittedly hostile, the Single Judge found no infirmity in the authorities' refusal that would warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

The Public Interest Argument Before the Division Bench

Before the Division Bench, counsel for Vijendra Kumar, Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, raised a new argument. He submitted that a large number of Assistant Teacher appointments had been made on the basis of manipulated documents and that this was already the subject matter of a public interest litigation. A Special Investigation Team, he said, was investigating the matter. He contended that respondent no. 4 had also procured her appointment by manipulation, and therefore disclosure of the information was in the public interest.

The Division Bench examined this claim carefully. It found that the public interest litigation was still pending and that no evidence had been annexed to the writ petition to establish, even prima facie, that respondent no. 4's appointment was obtained by any foul means. The assertion was bare.

Respondent no. 4, for her part, reiterated before the Division Bench that in the past the appellant had caused complaints to be filed against her as a form of harassment. This history, the court observed, was relevant context.

Privacy Against an Unsubstantiated Public Interest Claim

The Division Bench stated that it found “no such material on record to indicate involvement of any public interest” that could outweigh respondent no. 4's right to privacy. The absence of even prima facie evidence linking her to any irregularity in appointment was decisive. The court declined to treat an ongoing, unresolved PIL — with no specific finding against respondent no. 4 — as a sufficient basis to override her objection to disclosure.

The judgment, authored by Chief Justice Gupta, reinforces the position that Section 11 of the RTI Act is not a formality. Where a private individual objects to disclosure of her personal service information, and where the person seeking that information is engaged in bitter matrimonial litigation with her, the bar for demonstrating a countervailing public interest is a real one. A speculative claim tied to a pending investigation, without supporting material, does not clear it.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Special Appeal No. 283 of 2026 on 6 July 2026. Any pending applications in the matter were also disposed of. The orders of the Public Information Officer, the Chief Information Commissioner, and the Single Judge thus all stand.