Skip to main content

Demanding Information About Bank Accounts & Income Tax Returns, Without Statutory Backing, Violates Right To Privacy

In W.A.Nos. 2112 & 2118 of 2018, appeal was filed before the Kerala High Court against the judgment of the single bench wherein the objection of several petrol pump dealers against the petroleum companies demand for disclosure bank account details and income tax returns were disallowed. The dealers had claimed that such demand is violation of right to privacy.

Referring to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India : (2017) 10 SCC 1, the division bench said observed that the said judgment said held that any action by the State or its agencies which curbs or restricts the right to privacy of a citizen shall pass each of the following three tests: (1) test of legality, that is, such action must have a legislative or statutory basis (2) test of need and necessity, that is, such action  shall serve a definite purpose in public interest and (3) test of proportionality, that is, such action shall be at the minimum level required to achieve the object.

In answer to the issue whether details of bank accounts constitute private and personal information, the bench referring to District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank : AIR 2005 SC 186) &  Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India : (2011) 8 SCC 1, held that There can be no doubt with regard to the fact that details of the bank account of a person constitute personal and private information. The statement of account of a person in a bank would reveal the amount in deposit in the bank and the amounts deposited and withdrawn in the past. It would give a clear picture of a person's financial capacity. It would disclose the cash transactions which a person had with third parties. It would reveal the amount transferred to and received by a person from another. It may show the loans availed of by a person from the bank. Habits of a person, his life style, his association with other persons and many other personal matters can be deduced from a close scrutiny of his bank account for some period. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that details of the bank account of a person constitute personal information and that any demand made to disclose such information amounts to infringement of his right to privacy. Privacy attaches to the person and not the place where the information is kept.

Further, in Girish RamchandracDeshpande v. Central Information Commissioner: (2013) 1 SCC 212, in the context of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, the Apex Court has held that, the details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are personal information. Therefore, A demand for furnishing income tax returns filed by a person would constitute invasion of the privacy of a person.

Therefore as per the bench, the demands of the oil companies did not pass the tests laid down in the K.S.Puttaswamy judgment.

Finally, in reply to the contention of the oil companies that the demands have been made to ensure safe practices and marketing discipline and that no retail outlet is being conducted on benami basis, the bench observed that the tests of necessity and proportionality need not be considered when the demand made for furnishing the information does not pass the test of legality.





Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more