UP panel says RTI Act not meant for seeking marital details, rejects ex-wife's plea

The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission has clarified that details of a persons marital life cannot be sought under the Right to Information RTI Act, saying the law is a tool for transparency and not a register of private relationships.

The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission has clarified that details of a person's marital life cannot be sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, saying the law is a tool for transparency and not a register of private relationships. Dismissing an appeal, a bench headed by the State Information Commissioner Mohammad Nadeem said the RTI Act cannot be used to probe private marital relationships. According to an official statement, the ruling was given on Thursday in an appeal filed by a woman from Sant Kabir Nagar. After separating from her husband, the woman filed an RTI application on July 5, 2023, seeking information on whether her husband married another person without divorcing her. She sought to know whether the woman living with her husband is legally his wife, and whether details of their marital status are available with the village head. In her appeal, she also sought the names and ages of children from her husband's second marriage. The Public Information Officer replied that no such information was available in the records of the Gram Panchayat (village council). Not satisfied with the response, the applicant approached the State Information Commission. The Commission observed that expecting Gram Panchayats to maintain records of citizens' marital lives, private relationships, or family disputes amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the scope of the RTI Act. The information commissioner, in his order, said ''the RTI Act is a means of transparency, not a social register of private relationships between men and women.'' While the increasing trust of citizens in the RTI Act is positive, this trust should not reach a level where it is expected to provide information that does not even exist, the Commission added. The bench held that the reply given by the public information officer was adequate and disposed of the appeal.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)