Regulatory paradox: Govt bodies can't shelter under privacy laws when RTI is invoked

Right to Privacy is derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The law recognises that every individual has a private side and the right to privacy gives the right to that person to keep the private side to himself and not be given away to the public. The right to privacy was upheld as a fundamental right by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Justice KS. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. The bench of the apex court unanimously held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

As per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, if the information is personal causing unwarranted invasion of the privacy and serves no public interest, then the information cannot be disclosed unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or any other appellate authority is of the opinion that the disclosure of the information serves larger public interest. This statutory provision clearly protects the personal information of an individual especially when the said personal information is in the control of the government authority. The personal information cannot be sought by a third party as such information is exempted from disclosure under the right to privacy. A good example can be the medical records of the individual lying with the government authority. The medical details cannot be sought under the RTI Act. However, if there is a piece of information with the government authority and the applicant is seeking such information under the RTI Act, and it can also be proved that the disclosure of such information is warranted under the public interest, then the government authority cannot withhold such an information being disclosed under the RTI Act.

Clearly there seems to be a paradox between RTI and RTP. It looks like the government authority can take shelter under RTP and shy away from disclosing the information. Moreover, there is also a statute in the form of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which provides an exemption from disclosure of personal information under the RTI. There is no watertight segregation between the two. There is a dwindling thin line and this line must be brought out clearly by the applicant in the form of public interest. Public interest may warrant disclosure of such personal information to the applicant by the public authority disregarding the RTP. But the challenge lies in demarcating the two. The challenge lies with the applicant. So before an applicant seeks to know the personal information of an individual, he has to first justify the public benefit of the information to be disclosed. The responsibility clearly lies with the applicant. The requirement under public interest will force the information officer, to disclose the personal information and he should be convinced that this does not infringe the RTP. The government should also clearly formulate policies as to what all information can be disclosed under RTI and information which can be protected under RTP. The RTI and the RTP are hence, two sides of the same coin which uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens.