Chandigarh: A plea from a man (husband) seeking information about his own name and address from her wife’s employer under the Right to Information (RTI) Act left the Punjab and Haryana High Court surprised.
The petitioner husband moved the High Court with the grievance that he had sought certain information regarding his own name and address from his wife’s employer, which is not being supplied to him under the RTI Act.
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, while dismissing the plea of the man, noted that nothing has come on record as to why the husband is seeking the information from his wife’s employer about his own name and address.
Husband is seeking details about himself, which is surprising: High Court
“Nothing has come on record as to why the husband is seeking the information from the Department about the name and address of the husband of Veena Kumari that is to say that the husband is seeking details about himself, which is surprising,” Justice Sethi said.
What did the petitioner submit?
The counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the personal information – name and address of the husband of the employee in question – of one of the employee (Petitioner’s wife) was sought and the same was not being provided by the employer. The court was during the course of the hearing apprised by petitioner’s counsel that actually the petitioner is the husband of the employee.
State opposed the plea of the husband
The counsel representing the State opposed the plea of the husband, submitting that the personal information of an employee cannot be given as the same is barred under section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Bar and Bench reported.
Justice Sethi said that the asking of the personal information of an employee relates to the privacy of the employee concerned and noted that no information qua the official duties of the employee (wife) was being sought by the petitioner (husband).
“Keeping in view the fact that personal information is not to be made available under 2005 Act, no ground is made out for any interference by this court,” the High Court said while dismissing the plea by the husband.
