A difficult part of rulings has frequently been balancing the public's right to know with an individual's right to privacy. These disagreements are strengthened by the Right to Information Act of 2005, which grants the statutory authority the right to know to a certain degree. Over the years, the act has been interpreted in a variety of ways, adding depth to our understanding of it. The fundamental problem with the right to information, though, is that it might clash with the right to privacy. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 defines the right to privacy as an essential component of the freedoms protected by Part III of the Constitution and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

The right to information act contradicts to right to privacy of an individual . in the recent Kerala high court WP(C) 16142/ 2017 LT. Col.K.Jainendra Kumar (RETD) v/s State Information Commission, the question of the extent of application of right to information act 2005 to an individual's data was identified . the petitioner is Lt. Col. K. Jainendra Kumar (Retired). He filed a petition against the State Information Commission regarding matters related to the Right to Information Act, 2005

The Right To Information Act, 2005

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a landmark legislation in India that empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities, thereby promoting transparency, accountability, and participatory governance. The Act applies to all public authorities established or constituted under the Constitution, any law made by Parliament or State Legislatures, or through notifications or orders by the central or state governments. It defines "information" broadly to include records, documents, emails, reports, samples, and electronic data.

Under the Act, any Indian citizen can request information from a public authority, which is obligated to provide it within a specified time frame—usually within 30 days, or 48 hours in cases involving life or liberty. The RTI Act also establishes a framework for appeals and complaints through Information Commissions at the central and state levels. Public authorities are required to maintain their records in a catalogued and indexed manner to facilitate access. The right to information is rooted in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, recognizing that access to information is essential for exercising this freedom meaningfully.

Right To Privacy

The Right to Privacy is now recognized as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, rooted primarily in Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right was firmly established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017), where a nine-judge bench unanimously held that privacy is intrinsic to the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Court overruled earlier decisions and clarified that the right to privacy includes several facets such as personal autonomy, bodily integrity, informational privacy, and the right to make personal life choices. It encompasses protection against physical intrusions, unauthorized data collection, surveillance, and interference in personal decisions relating to family, relationships, faith, and body. Though fundamental, the right to privacy is not absolute. It can be restricted under reasonable limitations such as concerns of national security, public order, or to protect the rights of others.

However, such restrictions must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality, as laid down in the Puttaswamy judgment. This ruling has had far-reaching implications, influencing other major decisions such as the decriminalization of homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and the striking down of the adultery law in Joseph Shine (2018). In the modern digital age, the right to privacy plays a vital role in protecting individuals from the misuse of personal data and ensuring the dignity and autonomy of citizens in both physical and virtual spaces.

Balancing The Right To Privacy And RTI

the Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy are both important fundamental rights, but sometimes they can go against each other. The Right to Information Act 2005 , which comes under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, allows people to get information from the government to make sure it is working in a fair and open way. On the other hand, the Right to Privacy, which comes under Article 21, protects a person's personal information and private life from being shared without their permission. A conflict happens when someone uses RTI to ask for personal details about another person—like their salary, medical history, or job performance. In such cases, sharing this kind of information may invade someone's privacy.

The Supreme Court has said that private information should not be given out under RTI unless there is a clear public interest. This is also supported by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which says that personal information cannot be shared unless it helps serve a larger public good. So, while RTI helps in making the government more transparent, it should not be used to harm someone's right to privacy. The law tries to keep a balance between the public's right to know and a person's right to keep their life private.

Limitations Of The RTI Act, 2005

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a landmark legislation that empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability in governance. However, this right is not absolute. The Act also lays down specific exemptions under Section 8(1) to safeguard national interests, individual privacy, and other sensitive concerns. These exemptions are essential to maintain a balance between the public's right to know and the need to protect confidential or harmful disclosures.
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act outlines the following categories of exempted information:

• Clause (a): Information that would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, or its relations with foreign states, or that would lead to incitement of an offence.
• Clause (b): Information that has been expressly forbidden from being published by any court of law or tribunal.
• Clause (c): Information that would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.
• Clause (d): Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, unless disclosure is necessary in the larger public interest.
• Clause (e): Information available to a person in their fiduciary capacity, unless larger public interest justifies its disclosure.
• Clause (f): Information received in confidence from a foreign government.
• Clause (g): Information, the disclosure of which would endanger life or physical safety of any person or identify a confidential source.
• Clause (h): Information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.
• Clause (i): Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries, and other officers, except where decisions have been taken, and the matter is complete.
• Clause (j): Personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless a larger public interest justifies its disclosure.

These exemptions serve as necessary checks to prevent the misuse of RTI provisions. They reflect the intention of the legislature to uphold constitutional values such as privacy (Article 21) and national security, even while encouraging transparency. The judiciary has often been called upon to interpret these clauses in individual cases, ensuring that neither transparency nor privacy is undermined.

Judicial Interpretation
There are many relevant cases where transparency and privacy have come into question together. In Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam, (2018) 11 SCC 426, the Supreme Court held that personal information of employees, such as transfers and postings, is protected under the Right to Privacy (Article 21) and cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.

The Court referred to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which states that:
"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, unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."

Another key case addressing the conflict between the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy is Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212. The petitioner sought personal details of a government employee under RTI, including service records and disciplinary actions. The Supreme Court held that such information is personal and exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest justifies disclosure. The case reinforced that even public servants enjoy privacy rights in non-public matters.

Another significant case that explored the balance between the Right to Privacy and the Right to Information is Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, where the petitioner sought information under the RTI Act about judges' asset declarations and correspondence on judicial appointments.

The Supreme Court ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the RTI Act and must provide information when it serves the public interest. It also held that while judges have a right to privacy, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the public's right to know. This case clarified that both privacy and transparency are fundamental rights, and deciding between them depends on the facts of each case

The most recent case continuing this interpretation is the Electoral Bonds Scheme verdict Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 880 of 2017, decided on 15 February 2024 where the Supreme Court struck down the scheme, holding that the anonymity of political donors violated the public's Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a).

The Court relied on Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, which requires public authorities to proactively disclose key information. It reiterated that while the Right to Privacy is fundamental, it must be weighed against the public's right to know, especially in matters concerning political funding and democratic transparency.

Analysis
The Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy (RTP) are two fundamental constitutional rights that frequently intersect in the realm of public administration and governance. Both aim to uphold democratic values but serve different functions — RTI empowers citizens by promoting transparency and accountability, while RTP safeguards individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives.

The RTI Act, 2005, enacted to operationalize Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, gives citizens the legal right to access information held by public authorities. It is rooted in the idea that an informed citizenry is essential for participatory governance. Section 4 of the RTI Act further mandates proactive disclosure by public authorities to reduce the need for formal information requests.

On the other hand, the Right to Privacy gained recognition as a fundamental right under Article 21 following the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). This judgment established privacy as an intrinsic part of personal liberty, dignity, and autonomy. However, the Court also acknowledged that the RTP is not absolute and may be limited when public interest, national security, or transparency in governance are at stake.

The tension between these rights becomes most apparent when a citizen's request for information under RTI involves personal data or confidential records. In such cases, courts are tasked with balancing the need for public accountability against the individual's right to privacy. This balance is context-specific and is often guided by the public interest test if the disclosure significantly serves public interest, it may override privacy concerns.
Cases like Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India (2020) and the Electoral Bonds Scheme case (2024) demonstrate the evolving judicial approach to this balance.

While the former upheld transparency within the judiciary, the latter emphasized the citizen's right to know the sources of political funding - both reinforcing the RTI's role in safeguarding democracy. At the same time, courts have also protected privacy when disclosure would not meaningfully serve public interest, as seen in cases involving personal financial or medical data.

In conclusion, the dynamic between RTI and RTP highlights the constitutional commitment to both individual dignity and collective accountability. The judiciary's role in interpreting and harmonizing these rights ensures that neither is misused that privacy does not become a shield for opacity, nor transparency a tool for intrusion.

Conclusion
The Right to Information and the Right to Privacy are both vital to a democratic society. RTI empowers citizens to seek transparency and accountability from public authorities, while the Right to Privacy protects personal freedom and dignity. However, these rights can sometimes clash—especially when information requests involve private or sensitive details.

Courts have played a key role in balancing these rights. They have made it clear that neither right is absolute. When disclosure serves a greater public interest, such as promoting transparency in political fundig or exposing wrongdoing, RTI may take priority. But when the information is purely personal and unrelated to public interest, the right to privacy is protected.

Provisions like Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act help guide this balance.
Overall, this research shows that a case-by-case approach is necessary to maintain fairness between openness and privacy. As demands for transparency grow alongside digital concerns, the balance between these two rights will continue to evolve with legal interpretation and public need.

Also Read:

• Right to Privacy vis-a-vis Right to Information: A quintessential circumspection
• Balancing The Right To Information With Developing The Right To Privacy