The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the denial of information sought under the Right to Information Act by a man concerning the government service of his estranged wife, holding that there was “no material on record indicating any public interest that could outweigh her right to privacy”. Holding the above, the Court noted that the appellant had failed to place even prima facie material supporting his allegation that his wife had procured her appointment through manipulation, thus clarifying that the information sought was outside the purview of public interest and hence did not warrant any interference.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay was hearing a Special Appeal challenging the Single Judge's order dated May 20, 2026, whereby the appellant's writ petition against the Chief Information Commissioner's order dated April 1, 2026 had been dismissed.

The Single judge bench had dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order of the Chief Information Officer concerning the wife's service as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Junior High School. The judgment records that matrimonial disputes between the parties were pending before the Family Court.

The Respondent- wife opposed the RTI application, stating that the information was being sought with ulterior motives. She specifically alleged that the appellant had previously caused various complaints to be filed against her before different authorities, which had resulted in grave mental harassment.

Taking her objection into consideration, the Public Information Officer rejected the appellant's RTI application. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal and, when it was not decided within the statutory timeline, approached the Chief Information Commissioner by way of a second appeal. The Chief Information Commissioner dismissed the second appeal on April 1, 2026.

The matter then came to be challenged before the Single Judge. The Judge took note of the respondent's objection and the fact that the appellant had been making complaints against her before different authorities. The Single Judge also considered Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act and held that where information concerning a third party is sought and the third party objects to its disclosure, the Central or State Public Information Officer, as applicable, is empowered to decide whether the information should be disclosed.

The Single Judge further held that, since the relationship between the appellant and respondent- wife was admittedly not cordial and matrimonial disputes were pending before the Family Court, the decision of the authorities declining to furnish the information did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Subsequently, in the present appeal before the Division Bench, counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue concerning the alleged appointment of a large number of Assistant Teachers on the basis of manipulated documents was already the subject matter of a pending Public Interest Litigation and that a Special Investigation Team was investigating the matter.

It was contended that the respondent-wife had also procured her appointment through manipulation and that, therefore, disclosure of the information sought by the appellant was in public interest.

However, the Division Bench noted that “the public interest litigation is still pending. There is no evidence annexed with the writ petition to establish, even prima facie, that appointment was obtained by respondent no.4 by any foul means”.

The Court also took note of respondent- wife's strong objection to the disclosure of the information and her allegation that the appellant had, in the past, caused complaints to be filed against her with the object of subjecting her to harassment.

The Bench ultimately held:

“As at present, we find no such material on record to indicate involvement of any public interest, which may outweigh the right of privacy of the private party, therefore, we find no good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the Act as well as the order of the learned Single Judge”.

The Special Appeal was accordingly dismissed, and any pending application was also disposed of.

Case: Vijendra Kumar Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others [Special Appeal No.283 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order