ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to thank our subject teacher Dr.Mohd Asad Malik, for the
valuable guidance and advice. He inspired us greatly to work on this interesting assignment. His
willingness to motivate us contributed tremendously to our assignment. I also would like to
thank him for showing us some sample assignments on how to go about the research assignment.
It gave me an opportunity to analyze and learn about the operation of various Articles of
Constitution of India relating to the topic. Besides, I would like to thank the Faculty staff for
providing us with a good environment and facilities for completing this assignment. In addition, I
would also like to thank my seniors who provided me with the valuable information acting as a
source of guidance in making the assignment. Finally, an honorable mention goes to my family
and friends for their understandings and supports in completing this assignment. Without the
help of the particulars mentioned above, making of this assignment would not have been
possible.

THANK YOU!
 SYNOPSIS

 INTRODUCTION- RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND

RIGHT TO PRIVACY

 RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND ITS EXTENT AS PER

THE PRIVACY

 RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN INDIA

 RIGHT TO PRIVACY - PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTION

 RIGHT TO INFORMATION VIS A VIS RIGHT TO

PRIVACY

 COMPLEMENTARY ROLES OF RTI AND PRIVACY

 PERSONAL INFORMATION

 CONCLUSION
RIGHT TO INFORMATION VIS A VIS RIGHT TO
PRIVACY.

INTRODUCTION
RIGHT TO INFORMATION:
"The Right to Information Act, 2005" was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 23rd December
2004. The bill was subsequently pased by the House on11th May 2005, after adopting certain
amendments. The bill was later passed by the Rajya Sabha on 12th May, 2005 and got the
President's assent on 15- 6- 2005, the Act would come into force on the one hundred and
twentieth day of its enactment. But it is active state wise.1

The Right to Information Act, 2005 aims at providing Right to Information for citizens to secure
access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency
and accountability in the working of every public authority. By this act every Indian have right to
get information in any organization and any government department. 2

RIGHT TO PRIVACY:
Before we get into a complete discussion of Right to Privacy first of all we need to know what
does the word Privacy mean. According to Black’s Law Dictionary “right to be let alone; the
right of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity; the right to live without any
unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily
concerned.”3

Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” 4 . After reading the

1
Reference- www.wikipedia.com
2
Ibid.
3
Black's Law Dictionary 8th ed. (West Group, 2004), Bryan A. Garner
4
Article 21, Indian Constitution
Article 21, it has been interpreted that the term ‘life’ includes all those aspects of life which go to
make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.

In the earlier times in India, the law would give protection only from physical dangers such as
trespass from which the Right to Property emerged to secure his house and cattle. This was
considered to be the Right to Life. As the ever changing common law grew to accommodate the
problems faced by the people, it was realized that not only was physical security required, but
also security of the spiritual self as well as of his feelings, intellect was required. Now the Right
to Life has expanded in its scope and comprises the right to be let alone the right to liberty
secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term “property” has grown to comprise
every form of possession — intangible, as well as tangible.

The strategy adopted by the Supreme Court with a view to expand the ambit of Art. 21 and to
imply certain right there from, has been to interpret Art.21 along with international charters on
Human Rights.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND ITS EXTENT AS PER THE

PRIVACY:

The Act defines information in sec. 2(f) as any material in any form, including the records,
documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log books,
contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and
information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any
law for the time being in force.

Sec. 2(i) defines the word ‘record’ as including (a) any document, manuscript and file, (b) any
microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document, (c) any reproduction of image or
images embodied in such microfilm and (d) any other material produced by a computer or any
other device.

The information under this Act includes any mode of information in any form of record,
document, e-mail, circular, press release samples, samples of electronic data, etc. The most
welcoming feature of this enactment is that the information can be obtained within a fixed time
frame of 30 days and if the information relates to life or personal liberty, then it can be obtain
within 48 hours. No such time frame provision has been made in any Act or code till this date.

The Act provides for appointment of Public Information Officers in each of the public
authorities at different levels.The first step to be taken by the citizen seeking information is that
he may send the application for information to the Assistant Public Information Officers who
will transmit it within 5 days to the Public Information Officer.

The next stage is that if the Public Information Officer refuses to make the information
either partly or fully or fails to respond or respond in an unsatisfactory manner, the applicant for
information may file an appeal before the officer higher in status over the Public Information
Officer. This appeal before the higher officer is called the First Appeal.
Second Appeal is the third stage. The authority to entertain the Second appeal is the
Central/State Information Commission. The powers of Information Commission are very
extensive. If the appeal is allowed the Commission may direct the Information Officer to furnish
the information in the manner asked for. If the Commission finds the Information Officer to be at
fault, the Commission may levy on him heavy penalties and may also direct initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against him to the original Appointing Authority. The mechanism thus
created for making the information available to the citizen is four-tired commencing from
Assistant Public Information Officer, above him, the Public Information Officer, then Senior
Officer who is the Appellate Officer and finally the Information Commission that is the Second
Appellate Authority.While that much is the procedure to be followed by the citizens in obtaining
the information from public authorities, the Central/State Commissions, which are independent
statutory bodies, have overall control over the whole system. The Commissions have power to
supervise the work of Information Officers and call from them the reports. The Commission will
prepare an Annual Statement of the work done, the number of applications for information
received and the method of their disposal. The Commission while submitting its own report
containing the above particulars to the Government may also include the action taken by the
Commissions against erring officers.
However, Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified in the Second Schedule
like IB, RAW, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau,
Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special
Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau, Special
Branch (CID), Andaman and Nicobar, The Crime Branch-CID-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and
Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police are excluded from disclosures. Agencies specified by the
State Governments through a Notification will also be excluded. The exclusion, however, is not
absolute and these organizations have an obligation to provide information pertaining to
allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Further, information relating to allegations
of human rights violation could be given but only with the approval of the Central or State
Information Commission.
Another feature of this Act is that judicial intervention is prohibited i.e. the Court has no
power to entertain any suit or application or other proceedings in respect of any order made
under this Act. The Act provides for rule making power to both Central and State Governments
and such rules that were framed shall be laid before parliament in case of Central Govt. and State
Legislature in case of State Govt5.

OBJECTIVE / PURPOSE:

The objective/purpose of the Right to Information Act 2005 are:

a) To promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of every public
authority.- By this act everyone get information about any subject and transparency arises. Due
to this corruption decreases in India.
b) To contain corruption and to hold Governments/Public authorities accountable
to the public.
c) To preserve confidentiality of sensitive information- by right to information act everyone
get good information it also help to media people who easily received the correct information.6

5
Reference- www.scribd.com
6
Reference- www.wikipedia.com
WHAT IS NOT OPEN TO DISCLOSURE( DATA KEPT PRIVATE):

In Right to Information act, some document we did not open with the help of this act. The
following is exempt from disclosure [Sec.8]

 information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity
of India, the security, *strategic, scientific or economic" interests of the State, relation
with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
 information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or
tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
 information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or
the State Legislature;
 information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the
disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the
competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information;
 information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information;
 information received in confidence from foreign Government;
 information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any
person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law
enforcement or security purposes;
 information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or
prosecution of offenders;
 cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries
and other officers;
 information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion
of the privacy of the individual (but it is also provided that the information which cannot
be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied by this exemption);
Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority may allow access to
information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. (NB:
This provision is qualified by the proviso to sub-section 11(1) of the Act which exempts
disclosure of "trade or commercial secrets protected by law" under this clause when read along
with 8(1)(d))) 7

RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN INDIA:

As already discussed Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. The
right to life enshrined in Article 21 has been liberally interpreted so as to mean something more
than mere survival and mere existence or animal existence. It therefore includes all those aspects
of life which makes a man’s life more meaningful, complete and worth living and right to
privacy is one such right. The first time this topic was ever raised was in the case of Kharak
Singh v. State of UP 8 where the Supreme Court held that Regulation 236 of UP Police
regulation was unconstitutional as it clashed with Article 21 of the Constitution. It was held by
the Court that the right to privacy is a part of right to protection of life and personal liberty. Here,
the Court had equated privacy to personal liberty.

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh 9 , Mathew, J. accepted the right to privacy as an

emanation from Art. 19(a), (d) and 21, but right to privacy is not absolute right. “Assuming that
the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right
to privacy is itself a fundamental right, the fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the
basis of compelling public interest”. Surveillance by domiciliary visits need not always be an
unreasonable encroachment on the privacy of a person owing to the character and antecedents of
the person subjected to surveillance as also the objects and the limitation under which the
surveillance is made. The right to privacy deals with ‘persons not places’.

7
Reference- www.rti.gov.com
8
1964 SCR (1) 332
9
1975 SCR (3) 946
In Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.10,(1978) in this case SC 7 Judge Bench said
‘personal liberty’ in article 21 covers a variety of rights & some have status of fundamental
rights and given additional protection u/a 19. Triple Test for any law interfering with personal
liberty: (1) It must prescribe a procedure; (2) the procedure must withstand the test of one or
more of the fundamental rights conferred u/a 19 which may be applicable in a given situation and
(3) It must withstand test of Article 14. The law and procedure authorising interference with
personal liberty and right of privacy must also be right just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or
oppressive.

In Naz Foundation Case (2009) Delhi HC 11 gave the landmark decision on consensual
homosexuality. In this case S. 377 IPC and Articles 14, 19 & 21 were examined. Right to privacy
held to protect a “private space in which man may become and remain himself”. It was said
individuals need a place of sanctuary where they can be free from societal control- where
individuals can drop the mask, desist for a while from projecting on the world the image they
want to be accepted as themselves, an image that may reflect the values of their peers rather than
the realities of their nature.

It is now a settled position that right to life and liberty under article 21 includes right to privacy.
Right to privacy is ‘a right to be let alone’. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his
own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other
matters. Any person publishing anything concerning the above matters except with the consent
of the person would be liable in action for damages. Position however, be different, if a person
voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.

On 24 August 2017, a nine judge bench of the Supreme Court of India handed down its decision
in the important constititutional case of Puttaswamy v Union of India .12 In a remarkable and
wide ranging 547 page judgment the Court ruled unanimously that privacy is a constitutionally

10
1978 AIR 597
11
Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277
12
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors; WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494
OF 2012
protected right in India. This is landmark case which is likely to lead to constitutional challenges
to a wide range of Indian legislation

RIGHT TO PRIVACY - PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTION:

Intrusion into privacy may be by- (1) Legislative Provision (2) Administrative/Executive order
(3) Judicial Orders. Legislative intrusion must be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness as
guaranteed by the Constitution and for that purpose the Court can go into proportionality of the
intrusion vis-à-vis the purpose sought to be achieved. (2) So far as administrative or executive
action is concerned it has to be reasonable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case. (3) As to judicial warrants, the Court must have sufficient reason to believe that the search
or seizure is warranted and it must keep in mind the extent of search or seizure necessary for
protection of the particular State interest. In addition, as stated earlier, common law did
recognise rare exceptions for conduct of warrantless searches could be conducted but these had
to be in good faith, intended to preserve evidence or intended to prevent sudden anger to person
or property.”13

RIGHT TO INFORMATION VIS A VIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY:

In India the Constitution does not expressly recognise the right to privacy. But after the case of
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P14 the Supreme Court for the first time recognised the right to
privacy which is implicit in the Constitution under Article 21. The Court held that the right to
privacy is an integral part of the right to life, but without any clear cut laws, it still remains in the
gray area. The view was based on the conclusion that the infringement of a fundamental right
must be both direct as well as tangible that the freedom guaranteed u/a 19(1)(a)- a right to
freedom of speech and expression was not infringed upon by a watch being kept over the
movement of the suspect.

In R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., the apex Court held that the right to privacy is a ‘right to let
alone’. No one can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent, whether

13
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/right-to-privacy-under-article-21-and-the-related-conflicts-1630-
1.html (last visit 15-11-2014)
14
1964 SCR (1) 332
truthful or otherwise whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right
to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in the action of damages.

In Mr. X v. Hospital Z, it was held that where there is a clash of two fundamental rights, as in the
instant case, namely, the appellant’s right to privacy as a part of right to life and other person’s
right to lead a healthy life which is her fundamental right u/a 21, the right which would advance
the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court, for
the reason that moral consideration cannot be kept at bay and judges are not expected to sit as
mute structures of clay as in Hail, known as Courtroom but have to be sensitive, “in the sense
that they must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day” 15.

Voicing concern over vexatious use of RTI Act, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the
citizens’ to know should definitely be circumscribed if it encroaches on an individual’s privacy.
He said “there is a fine balance required to be maintained between right to information and the
right to privacy, which stems out of the fundamental right of life and liberty. The citizen’s right
to know should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of information encroaches upon
someone’s personal privacy. But where to draw a line is a complicated question.”

Recently in one of the most controversial case Ratan Tata went to Supreme Court against the
publication of intercepts of his conversation with Neera Radia who handles the corporate
communication for the group. Tata holds that as Radia’s phones were tapped by government
agencies especially for investigating a possible offence the recorded conversations should have
been used for that purpose alone. Ratan Tata has submitted his petition before Supreme Court
asking to protect his right to privacy. But given that freedom of information laws have at their
core the purpose of disclosure, exemptions are strictly construed, and it has been said that the
public right to know should prevail unless disclosure would publicise intimate details of a highly
personal nature. The Radia tapes so far published public issues, but not personal life of Tata.
These conversations would be available to every citizen under the RTI Act because the only
objection that one could raise would be on the ground of 8(j) of RTI Act which says-information
which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
activity on interest. It also says “or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of

15
http://books.google.co.in/books?id= ( last visit 16-11-2014)
the individual unless the public authority is satisfied, unless the information officer is satisfied
that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such an information.”16

In that case a preliminary question that should be asked is whether Tata’s conversations would
be revealed through an RTI, or whether his conversations would fall under the exemption of
personal information found in section 8(j). It is interesting to note the structure of this exemption.
By the use of word “or” the legislation suggests that unwarranted invasion of individual privacy
may trigger the exemption, even if the information has a relationship to public activity or
interest. But the added caveat says that the larger public interest could justify the release of even
purely private information.

By the use of the word “or” the legislation suggests that unwarranted invasion of individual
privacy may trigger the exemption, even if the information has a relationship to public activity or
interest. But the added caveat says that the larger public interest could justify the release of even
purely private information. In addition, what constitutes “personal” information has not been
defined in the legislation.

However, according to expert legal opinion, the Supreme Court of India is well within its rights
to allow disclosure of conversation details between Ratan Tata and Nira Radia.

COMPLEMENTARY ROLES OF RTI AND PRIVACY :

Right to information and Right to privacy often play complementary roles. Both are focused on
ensuring the accountability of powerful institutions to individual in the information era.
Several cases have laid down that these two rights overlap and complement each other. Right to
Information and Right to privacy both provides an individual access to their own personal
information from government bodies, In many cases, the two rights overlap in a complementary
manner. Both rights provide an individual access to his or her own personal information from
government bodies. They also mutually enhance each other: privacy laws are used to obtain
policy information in the absence of an RTI law, and RTI laws are used to enhance privacy by
revealing abuses.

16
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-to-examine ( last visit 14-11-2014)
In the famous case Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union Of India 17 held that true
democracy cannot exit unless the citizens have a right to participate in the affair of the policy of
the country. The right to participate in the affair of the country is meaningless unless the citizen
are well informed on all sides of issue in respect of which they are called upon to express their
view. Unilateral information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information all equally
create uniformed citizens which makes democracy a farce when medium of information is
monopolised either by a partisan central authority or by private individual or an organisation.
This is particularly so in a country like ours where 65% of the population is illiterate.
Privacy gives the right to control about who knows what about a person, and under what
conditions, thereby controlling the intimacies of life. It is all about secrecy, and the right to
determine for oneself if and to what extent personal information is disseminated. The right to
privacy is the protection against having a society in which the government completely controls
the people’s lives, and requires the government to protect individuals from privacy invasion by
other people18. Right to privacy ensures that personal emails, bank details and medical records
are safe and secure. This is essential to human dignity and autonomy in all societies around the
globe.
Privacy is a fundamental right and most governments around the world have sought to protect
their citizens in their beliefs, emotions, sensations and thoughts. A person has the right to
determine what kind of information is taken about them, and the purpose of that information.
This helps in protecting individuals from exploitation.
Right of privacy prevents unlawful exposure of personal information. People have to right to
review their information, ask for any necessary corrections and be informed on any disclosures.
This is significant as it contributes to the security of the involved persons. Privacy provided by
financial institutions to their customers helps on safeguarding the information collected from
their customer offering security to their finances.
The constitutions should protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The right to
privacy is most often guarded by constitutional law. For instance, In United States, the health
information portability and accountability act protects a person’s health information while the

17
AIR 2003 SC 2363.
18
David Banisar, 2011, The Right to Information and Privacy: Balancing Rights and managing conflicts.
Washington. The World Bank.
federal trade commission guarantees the right to privacy in various private statements and
policies.
The controversy on the extent of privacy protection has forced many governments to make
certain clarifications by amending the constitutions. These amendments have been used in
determining the right to personal liberty. For example, in United States, the principle underlying
the fourth and the Fifth Amendment is the protection against the invasion of the sanctity of a
person’s home and the privacy of life.19
Its the right of every human being to protect it privacy from the intrusion by corporations and
governments. Privacy should be cherished by individuals, protected by the governments and
cherished by all corporations. It is imperative for the government as well as other people to
respect a person’s right to keep some things to themselves.
In NAACP v. Alabama (357 U.S. 449)20 was the landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme
Court formally recognized the freedom of association as a right protected by the First
Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States held the demand of Alabama’s
unconstitutional that the NAACP reveal the names and addresses of addresses of all of its
members and its agent.
Synopsis of Rule of Law: In the realm of acute liberties of speech, press, or association,
curtailment of such rights, even though unintentional, may unavoidably follow from different
forms of governmental action. Disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may
result in an effective restrain on freedom of association
Facts: The Respondent, Alabama (Respondent), demanded that the Petitioner, the NAACP
(Petitioner), provide a list of all of the Alabama NAACP members based on the state’s foreign
corporation registration law made in the course of an injunction action brought to stop the
Petitioner from conducting activities in the state. Respondent moved for the production of a large
number of the Petitioner’s records. The Petitioner produced almost all the requested data except
for membership lists. The trial court adjudged the petitioner and imposed fine. The issue were
whether compelled disclosure of membership lists is in violation of the Petitioner’s members’
rights of freedom of association? Whether Respondent has demonstrated an interest in obtaining

19
See fourth and fifth amendment of US Constitution.
20
377 U.S.288.84 S. Ct. 1302. 12L. Ed.2d 325 (1964)
the membership lists, which is sufficient to justify the deterrent effect which releasing this lists
would have on the free exercise of the constitutionally protected right of association?
The answer of the first question was affirmative. “Yes, the Judgment of the lower court reversed.
In the domain of indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association, curtailment of
such rights, even though unintentional, may inevitably follow from different forms of
governmental action. Compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may
constitute an effective restraint on freedom of association. There is an important relationship
between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations. This order must be regarded as
entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by the Petitioner’s members of
their freedom of association. Further, it is apparent that forced disclosure would result in
adversely affecting the members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs, which they
have the right to advocate. Therefore, disclosure of membership lists is in violation of the
Petitioner’s freedom of association.
No. Judgment of the lower court reversed. The Petitioner has not objected to divulging the
identity of its members who are employed or hold office positions. There is no justification for
the interest of obtaining membership lists.”21This case holds that disclosure of the membership
lists is unconstitutional partly based on the “chilling effect” that it would have on the freedom of
association. NAACP v. ALabama advances the concept of associational privacy. Yet the case
has been a precedent for the right to privacy in what are clearly decisional and informational
privacy cases22. some as progressive as Griswold v. Conneuicut23and Roe v. Wade24.

21
Allen, Anita L., "Associational Privacy and the First Amendment: NAACP v. Alabama, Privacy and
Data Protection" (2011). Faculty Scholarship. Paper 507.
22
Allen, Anita L., "Associational Privacy and the First Amendment: NAACP v. Alabama, Privacy and
Data Protection" (2011). Faculty Scholarship. Paper 508.
23
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
24
410 U.S. 113(1973)
PERSONAL INFORMATION :

The word personal means appertaining to the person; belonging to an individual; limited to the
person; having the nature or partaking of the qualities of human beings, or of movable
property25.
Personal Information under the Act, would be an information, that pertains to a person. It takes
into its fold possibly every kind of information relating to the person. Now, such personal
information of the person may, or may not be related to any public activity, or to public interest.
At the same time, such personal information may, or may not, be private to the person. So the
determination as to what constitute personal information is very crucial.
In the case Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi high court26, the applicant
invoked the provision of RTI Act and sought from the Public Information Officer for inspection
of all records, note sheets, manuscripts, etc; on the disciplinary action taken against Shri G.S.
Narang IRS, Central Excise and custom Service Officer along with final decision taken regarding
imposition of penalty/ disciplinary action and the decision of UPSC.
The Delhi High Court has tried to distinguish private information and personal information by
stating that personal information is a broader concept which covers all private information like
family, marriage, motherhood, an employee is primarily a matter of employer-employee known
as personal information that is governed by service rule.
Personal Information has also been interpreted to mean identity details of public servants like
date of birth, identification numbers etc. The court also established certain considerations to be
followed in order to have a balance between information and privacy rights when personal
information of public officials submitted to public agencies is requested.

PRIVATE INFORMATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL:

Some of the most common problems regarding section 8(1)(j) come up when discussing
information (personal or otherwise) regarding public officers. The issue comes up because an
argument can be made that certain information such as income tax details, financial details,
medical records, etc. of public officials should be disclosed since it has a bearing on their public
activities and disclosure of such information in case of crooked officers would serve the interests
25
See Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
26
W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. NO.2618/2011.
of transparency and cleaner government (hence serving a larger public interest). Although
section 8(1)(j) does not make any distinction between a private person and a public servant, a
distinction in the way their personal information is treated does appear in reality due to the
inherent nature of a public servant. Infact it has sometimes been argued that public servants must
waive the right to privacy in favour of transparency. 27 However this argument has been
repeatedly rejected by the Courts, 28 just because a person assumes public office does not mean
that he/she would automatically lose their right to privacy in favour of transparency.
If personal information regarding a public servant is asked for, then a distinction must be made
between the information that is inherently personal to the person and that which has a connection
with his/her public functions. The information exempted under section 8(1)(j) is personal
information which is so intimately private in nature that the disclosure of the same would not
benefit any other person, but would result in the invasion of the privacy of the third party.29 In
short, the Courts have concluded that there can be no blanket rule regarding what information
can and cannot be disclosed when it comes to a public servant, and the disclosure (or lack of it)
would depend upon the circumstances of each case.
Although the earlier thinking of the CIC as well as various High Courts of the country was that
information regarding disciplinary proceedings and service records of public officials is to be
treated as public information in order to boost transparency, however this notion was changed in
2012 after the decision of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central
Information Commissioner, and now the prevailing principle is that such information is
personal information and should not be disclosed unless a larger public interest is would be
served by the disclosure.
It would also be helpful to look at a list of the type of information regarding public servants
which has been disclosed in the past, gleaned from various cases, to get a better understanding of
the prevailing trends in such cases:
1. Details of postings of public servants at various points of time, since this was not considered
as personal information;30

27
Vijay prakash v. Union of India,2009(82)AIC 538 (Del)
28
Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra , Delhi High Court- full bench, LPA
no.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.
29
See canara bank vs. Chief information commissioner,2007(58) AIC ker 667.
30
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2010(119) AIC 105 (Sc).
2. Copies of posting/ transfer orders of public servants, since it was not considered personal
information;31

3. Information regarding transfers of colleagues cannot be exempted from disclosure, since

disclosure would not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy and non disclosure would defeat
the object of the RTI Act;32

4. Information regarding the criteria adopted and the marks allotted to various academic
qualifications, experience and interview in selection process for government posts by the state
Public Service Commission;33

5. Information regarding marks obtained in written test, interview, annual confidential reports of
the applicant as well as the marks in the written test and interview of the last candidate selected,
since this information was not considered as personal information;

6. Information relating to the appointment and educational certificates of teachers in an

educational institution (which satisfies the requirements of being a public authority) was
disclosed since this was considered as relevant to them performing their functions.

The performance of an employee or officer in an organization is a matter between the employee

and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under
the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
activity or public interest. To understand this better below is a brief list of the type of information
that has been considered by the Courts as personal information which is liable to be exempt from
disclosure under section 8(1)(j):
(i)
(a) Salary details,
(b) show cause notice, memo and censure,
(c) return of assets and liabilities,
(d) details of investment and other related details,
(e) details of gifts accepted,

31
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012(119) AIC 105 (Sc).
32
Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667.
33
Haryana Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, AIR 2009 P & H 14.
(f) complete enquiry proceedings,
(g) details of income tax returns34
(ii) All memos issued, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are personal
information. Cannot be revealed unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure.35
(iii)Disciplinary information of an employee is personal information and is exempt under section
8(1)(j).36
(iv) Medical records cannot be disclosed due to section 8(1)(j) as they come under "personal
information" unless a larger public interest can be shown meriting such disclosure.37
(v) Copy of personnel records and service book (containing Annual Confidential Reports, etc.) of
a public servant is personal information and cannot be disclosed due to section 8(1)(j).38
(vi) Information regarding sexual disorder, DNA test between an officer and his surrogate
mother, name of his biological father and step father, name of his mother and surrogate step
mother and such other aspects were denied by the
Courts as such information was considered beyond the perception of decency and was an
invasion into another man's privacy.39
It is not just the issue of disclosure of personal details of public officials that raises complicated
questions regarding the right to information, but the opposite is equally true, i.e. what about
seemingly "public" details of private individuals. A very complicated question arose with regard
to information relating to the passport details of private individuals.

34
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).
35
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC). 0.
36
R.K. Jain v. Union Public Service Commission, Delhi High Court, LPA No. 618 of 2012, dated 12-11-
2012.
37
Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA
no.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.
38
Srikant Pandaya v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 MP 14.
39
Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation v. Union of India and others, AIR 2011 Del 82. It must be
mentioned that this case was not exactly under the procedure prescribed under the RTI Act but was a public interest
litigation although the courts relied upon the provisions of the RTI Act.
CONCLUSION:
The Paper discusses The Right to Information and Right to Privacy and also the various
important aspects such as Data protection . It can be alleged that Right to Information and
protection of an individual’s Privacy is paramount and helpful for an individual to exist in
today’s scenario where technologies have taken over our lives, where everybody is a tech savvy.
These two Right should exist together. The simple solution for harmonizing these to right can be
through sanctioning crystal clear definition in legislation, regulations, guidelines and
implementing it in the system. Determination of public interest of Public Interest Test should be
adopted in case of Right to Information and Right to Privacy as in the Supreme Court case of
Girish Ramchadra deshpande in 2012, which concerned with the issue of service details of
public officials .Supreme court gave a strong interpretation of Right to Privacy and held that such
information is out of the ambit of RTI unless a larger public interest is involved in the disclosure
can be proven.
Now the legal boundaries of a person’s privacy should be specified strictly as determined in
Supreme Court case R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu. Finally there should be institutional
organization to ensure the harmony between Right to Information and Right to Privacy, and
resolving the conflict between these two rights .The loopholes that still exist in these two laws of
Right to Information and Right to Privacy must be filled. This can be achieved through airtight
legislation for Right to Information, Right to Privacy and Data Protection Laws.