The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to direct disclosure of service-related information concerning a government school teacher sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by her estranged husband, holding that no material was placed on record to show that a larger public interest outweighed her right to privacy.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay dismissed Special Appeal No. 283 of 2026 filed by Vijendra Kumar against the rejection of his RTI request.
Background of the Case
Vijendra Kumar had sought information from the Public Information Officer concerning the service of respondent no. 4, who is working as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Junior High School. The two are husband and wife, and matrimonial proceedings between them are pending before the Family Court.
The teacher opposed the RTI request, alleging that the information was being sought with ulterior motives. She also pointed out that complaints had previously been made against her before different authorities, which, according to her, had caused serious mental harassment. The Public Information Officer consequently rejected the request.
Her husband subsequently pursued the matter through the statutory appeal process. After the second appeal was dismissed by the Chief Information Commissioner on April 1, 2026, he approached the High Court. The Single Judge also declined to interfere with the decision.
Court’s Observation
Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that a public interest litigation concerning alleged manipulation of documents in appointments of Assistant Teachers was pending and that a Special Investigation Team was examining the issue. He claimed that the information concerning respondent no. 4 was therefore required in public interest.
The Bench, however, noted that the PIL was still pending and that there was no evidence attached to the writ petition establishing, even at a preliminary level, that respondent no. 4 had obtained her appointment through any improper means.
"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," the Bench observed.
The Court also took note of the pending matrimonial dispute and the respondent’s objection to the disclosure of the information. It found no reason to interfere with the decisions taken by the authorities under the RTI Act or with the order of the Single Judge.
Decision
The Division Bench dismissed Vijendra Kumar’s appeal. The Court also directed that any pending application would stand disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vijendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Others
Case Number: Special Appeal No. 283 of 2026
Judge(s): Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Decision Date: July 6, 2026
-300x169.webp)
