INTRODUCTION
The Right to Information Act 2005 is one of the landmark legislations passed in the history of the country. It seeks to promote accountability and transparency from the side of the government authorities. Under the act, the citizens have the right to seek information which is with the government authorities. They can inspect documents, works, records and may also collect samples with them. Information can be obtained in electronic form as well. This legislation acts as a catalyst in promoting good governance in India. On the other, the Right to Privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of KS Puttaswamy (2017). There might be occasions wherein The Right to Information may clash with the Right to Privacy. This could take place when information is sought about the personal records of public officials such as medical records, biometrics etc.
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY UNDER THE RTI ACT 2005
Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005, Information is defined as any material in any form, including documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, contracts, reports, samples, data material held in electronic form and also includes information relating to a private body but which can be accessed by a public authority. Therefore, in some circumstances even private bodies can come within the ambit of this act. The definition of public authority is given under Section 2(h) of the act. It refers to any authority or body or institution established under the Constitution, under any law of the Parliament, under any law of the State Legislature. Further, public authority includes any body owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate government and any NGO being substantially financed, either directly or indirectly by the appropriate government.
Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain types of information that may not be provided to the applicant. Section 8(1)(j) states that information which is linked to personal information and has no relationship to any public activity or interest or if it causes an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual shall not be disclosed. However, if the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or State Public Information Officer (SPIO) or the appellate authority is of the opinion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, then such information shall be provided to the citizen. There has been an attempt to balance the Right to Information with the Right to Privacy of a public officer. In ordinary circumstances, it cannot be disclosed if it has nothing to do with any public activity or interest. Though, such personal information can be disclosed if public interest outweighs the right of privacy of the individual. Other types of information which cannot be disclosed under Section 8 include information affecting the sovereignty, integrity, security of the country, information prohibited from being published by a court of law or tribunal, information whose disclosure would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or State Legislature, information received in confidence from a foreign government, information received by a person in fiduciary relationship etc.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
In the case of Girish Ramachandra Prasad v. CIC(2012), the petitioner had filed an RTI application seeking information with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) seeking information relating to an officer working at the RPFC. The information sought included details related to his appointment, salary, movable and immovable property possessed by him, IT returns, assets and liabilities etc. The Court held that that documents related to a public official including IT returns, appointment letter, assets and liabilities etc. qualifies as personal information by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Such information had no relation to any public activity and the disclosure of such information would cause an unwarranted intrusion of privacy of the public official.
In the case of RK Jain v. Union of India(2013), the petitioner had sought information relating to adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a member of a tribunal and he had also sought information relating to “follow up action” taken on these entries. The Supreme Court held that information relating to penalties or sanctions being imposed on an employee had nothing with public activity and was primarily a matter between the employee and the employer. Disclosure of such information would cause an unwarranted breach of privacy.
In the case of Canara Bank v. CS Shyam(2017), the petitioner had sought information relating to an employee working at Canara Bank The court had once emphasized that when information being sought is personal and has no rational nexus to any public activity, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act will prevail. The court did not find any compelling public interest in disclosing the personal information of the employee.
In the landmark case of Mr. X v. Hospital Z(1998), The Appellant had donated blood at the Respondent Hospital. It was soon discovered that he was HIV positive. This was disclosed by the hospital and soon his fiancé also got to know about the matter and the appellant’s marriage was thereby cancelled. He was ostracized by the members of his community and faced social stigma. The appellant filed a petition, contending that the hospital had violated his right to privacy under Article 21 and medical confidentiality ethics. The court held that the right of confidentiality was not violated by the hospital in this case. If the fact of his disease was not revealed by the hospital, then a lot more people, including his fiancé, could have been infected by the disease since HIV is a communicable disease. The disclosure of the information was permitted in public interest and the disclosure in public interest outweighed the right to privacy of the individual.
CONCLUSION
The Right to Information and Right to Privacy are integral to maintaining the freedom and security of an individual. While the former would enable the citizen to demand accountability and transparency from the authorities, the latter is crucial to ensure that the individual stays free in his personal sphere. In various judgments, the courts have tried to balance these two rights. If personal information is sought for a matter about a public servant which has nothing to do with any public activity, then information can be denied by the public authorities. But if the public interest outweighs the privacy, then such information could be given to the citizen.
Contributed By : Kritavirya Choudhary (Intern)