PROJECT ON

RIGHT TO PRIVACY VIS-À-VIS RIGHT TO INFORMATION

SUBMITTED BY

SANSKRITI MISHRA

ROLL NO. 136

SEM VIII SEC-TION B

CONSTITUTIONAL HONORS I

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

SUBMITTED TO

MS. ADITI SINGH

(FACULTY, CONSTITUTIONAL HONORS I)

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 Page |i

DECLARATION
I, Sanskriti Mishra, have undergone research of the project work titled “Right to Information
Vis-à-vis Right to Privacy”, as a student of Constitutional Governance – Fundamental Rights.
I hereby declare that this Research Project has been prepared by the student for academic
purpose only, and is the outcome of the investigation done by me and also prepared by
myself under the supervision of Ms. Aditi Singh, Faculty of Constitutional Governance –
Fundamental Rights, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur. The views expressed in
the report are personal to the student and do not reflect the views of any authority or any
other person, and do not bind the statute in any manner.

I also declare that this Research Paper or any part, thereof has not been or is not being
submitted elsewhere for the award of any degree or Diploma. This report is the intellectual
property of the on the part of student research work, and the same or any part thereof may not
be used in any manner whatsoever in writing.

Sanskriti Mishra
Roll. No. 136
Semester VIII, Section B
 P a g e | ii

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to sincerely thank the Faculty member of Constitutional Honours I, Ms. Aditi
Singh for giving me this project on the topic, “Right to Information Vis-à-vis Right to
Privacy”. This has widened my knowledge on the relevant topic.

I’d also like to thank all the honourable authors, writers, social workers and Academicians,
for their outstanding and remarkable works, views, ideas, and articles that I have used for the
completion of my project.

My heartfelt gratitude also goes out to my friends and family for their precious input which
have been very helpful in the completion of this project.

I would also like to thank the administration of HNLU for providing us with infrastructure in
the form of remote access to the digital library and resources which have been instrumental in
the completion of this project during the pandemic.

Sanskriti Mishra
Roll. No. 136
Semester VIII, Section B
 P a g e | iii

LIST OF CASES

1. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla 1976 AIR 1207

2. Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs CPIO (CIC/MHOME/A/2019/107928)
3. Govind v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 MP 320
4. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1963 SC 1295
5. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra 1954 AIR 300
6. M.Vijaya v. The Chairman, Singaren Collieries AIR 2001 AP 502
7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 SC1514 (12)
8. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) 1 S.C.C 712
9. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2363
10. Public Concern for Governance Trust v. State of Maharashtra Appeal (civil) 14 of
2007
11. Puttuswamy v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
12. S.P. Gupta v Union of India (1982) 2 S.C.R. 365
13. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain 1975 AIR 865
 P a g e | iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Declaration…………………………………………………………………………i
2. Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………………..ii
3. Table of Cases……………………………………………………………………..iii
4. Chapter 1-Introduction…………………………………………………………….01
1.1 – Research Methodology………………………………………………………02
5. Chapter 2- Right to Information………………………...…………………………04
2.1 – Background………………………………………………………………….04
2.2 – Right to Information in India………………………………………………..04
6. Chapter 3- Right to Privacy…………………………………………………….….06
3.1 – Introduction………………………………………………………………….06
3.2 – Evolution of Right to Privacy in India………………………………………06
3.3 – Data Protection Bill and Right to Privacy…………………………………...07
7. Chapter 4 – Right to Information and Right to Privacy: Balance or Conflict?........08
4.1 – Third Party Information……………………………………………………..08
4.2 – Supremacy to Public Interest or Privacy?.......................................................09
8. Chapter 5 – Harmonizing Right to Information and Right to Privacy…………….11
5.1 – A two-body model…………………………………………………………...11
5.2 – A single-body model………………………………………………………...11
9. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...13
10. References………………………………………………………………………....15
 Page |1

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION

Time and again it has been said that Constitution of India is a living document. It is a
dynamic document which changes with time. Truly living up to its reputation, it has moved
ahead with time and grown into a beautiful and a holistic document. The most evident proof
of its growth are the Fundamental Rights. The Constitution of India originally provided for
six fundamental rights, however with time and keeping in tune with the changes in the
society, many rights have been read into the Constitution as fundamental rights. Right to
education, privacy, livelihood, information, clean environment to name a few.

In 1950s, when majoritarianism was the norm, it wouldn’t have been possible to think of
asking information from government as a fundamental right. Neither it would have been
possible for the citizens to protect their private information as a fundamental right. But that
was a bygone era of ADM Jabalpur. 1 Now we’re living in the era beckoned by the likes of
Maneka Gandhi2 . We’re living under the protection of the golden triangle - Article 14,
Article 19 and Article 21.

Two of the most important rights that have been read into the Constitution as fundamental
rights are Right to privacy and Right to Information. Right to Information is recognized as
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The debate around right
to privacy being a fundamental right was put to an end in 2017 after the nine-judge bench in
Justice K.S Puttaswamy v Union of India, declared that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental
Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Before Right to Privacy was declared as a Fundamental Right, in the event of a conflict
between Right to Privacy and RTI, RTI prevailed since it is a Fundamental Right. However,
after Right to Privacy was declared as a Fundamental Right, significant amount of confusion
started occurring as to which one shall prevail in the event of a conflict between the Right to
Privacy and Right to Information. This paper seeks to briefly analyse both right to
information and right to privacy and the interplay and conflicts between them and suggest a
possible solution to establish harmony between the two rights.

1
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla 1976 AIR 1207
2
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 SC1514 (12)
 Page |2

1.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1.1.1 Problem of the Study

The topic of study is the analysis of the concepts of Right to Information and Right to Privacy
and to study the complementariness and the conflict between them.

1.1.2 Rationale
There is a need to analyse both the rights of Information and Privacy as they are both
fundamental rights. Both of them lay at the foundation of democracy and are extremely
relevant in the modern world where data is freely available and accessed by everyone.

1.1.3 Objectives
The objectives of this project are:

1. To briefly understand the concept of Right to Information in India

2. To understand the meaning of and trace and evolution of Right to Privacy in India
3. To analyse the interplay between Right to Information and Right to Privacy.
4. To provide suggestions which can help to establish harmony between the two rights.

1.1.4 Research Design

This research project is Doctrinal in nature since it is largely based on principles of
fundamental rights and specifically right to information and privacy which is based on
secondary and electronic sources of data and also since there is no field work involved while
producing this research and it largely involves study of various theories and comparison from
different books, journal and other online sources thus not being empirical in nature.

1.1.5 Sources of Data

This project is largely based on primary sources of data such as cases and reports of
committees, however secondary & electronic sources of data have been referred to a great
extent. Books, case laws, journals are primarily used for the completion of this project

1.1.6 Chapterization

Chapter 2 deals with the meaning of Right to Information

Chapter 3 discusses the meaning and evolution of Right to Privacy in India.

 Page |3

Chapter 4 analyses the balance and conflict between Right to Information and Right to
Privacy.

Chapter 5 seeks to provide suggestions for harmonious implementation of both the rights

1.1.7 Time Limit

Research on the topic and its preparation took nearly 14 days to complete.
 Page |4

CHAPTER 2. RIGHT TO INFORMATION

2.1 Background

The Right to Information (RTI) Act (hereafter, RTI Act), was enacted on 15 th June 2005. It
had been enacted to provide for setting out the practical regime of 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, the
constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commission and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.3

The RTI Act has been hailed as a landmark piece of legislation, both within and beyond the
country, primarily for these reasons. First, the fact of enacting a Right to Information law is a
radical departure from the access to information regime that existed prior to the enactment of
this law. Previously, under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) of 1923, all information held by
public authorities was considered secret by default, unless the government itself deemed it
otherwise. The second reason for considering RTI Act as a landmark was the specific nature
of the Act – it is seen as a transformatory piece of legislation that is fundamentally altering
the citizen-state relationship in the country.4

2.2 Right to Information in India

In India, even before the enactment of the Act in 2005, the idea of right to information started
developing, especially in the judicial arena. Various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme
Court have recognized the Right to Information way before the enactment of the RTI Act.
The first case in which the Supreme Court recognized the right to information is State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain5 where the court said that it is not in the interest of the public to
‘cover with a veil of secrecy the common routine business, the responsibility of official to
explain and the justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption. In
S.P. Gupta v Union of India6, the court held that an open and effective participatory
democracy requires accountability and access to information by the public about the
3
Preamble of the RTI Act
4
Democracy and Transparency in the Indian State: The Making of the Right to Information Act, Prashant
Sharma, 2016
5
1975 AIR 865
6
(1982) 2 S.C.R. 365
 Page |5

functioning of the government. The concept of an open government is the direct emanation
from the right to know, which is implicit in the right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the disclosure of
information in regard to government functioning must be the rule and secrecy the exception,
justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest demands it exception,
justifiable only when it is demanded by the requirement of public interest. 7

The Bombay High Court in Public Concern for Governance Trust v. State of Maharashtra 8
held categorically that Right to Information (RTI) is implicit and inbuilt in the Right to
Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India. It said that “. Be it known to everybody that right to information is implicit and inbuilt
in the right and freedom guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India.” “The right to free speech and expression includes within it the right to obtain
information. That is how this constitutionally recognised and permitted right is made
meaningful and its enforcement is now serving a larger public purpose. It is only the
enforcement machinery which is created by the RTI Act, 2005.”9

By enacting the Right to Information Act India has moved from an opaque and arbitrary
system of government to the beginning of an era where there will be greater transparency and
to a system where the citizen will be empowered and the true center of power. Only by
empowering the ordinary citizen can any nation progress towards greatness and by enacting
the Right to Information Act 2005

India has taken a small but significant step towards that goal. Democracy in its true sense will
prevail not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by all to
resist authority when abused. Time and again it has been highlighted that dissent is extremely
essential for a free society and for a transparent government. True dissent will happen only if
the citizens of the country have the necessary information about the government and its
officials. 10

CHAPTER 3: RIGHT TO PRIVACY

7
Dr. PK Rana, Right to Privacy in Indian Perspective, International Journal of Law, Vol 2 Issue 4, 06-09 (2016)
8
Appeal (civil) 14 of 2007
9
https://www.barandbench.com/news/rti-inbuilt-within-right-to-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-bombay-hc
10
Avani Bansal, The Power of Dissent and Silence Within, The Wire, https://thewire.in/government/power-
dissent-silence-within, accessed on July 07, 2020 at 08:37 pm
 Page |6

3.1 Introduction

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Privacy as a “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.”

Privacy is an undisputed right of an individual comprehensively bonded with his/her life.

When the privacy of an individual is mishandled/intruded illegitimately by the Government
or erroneous individuals, it becomes a matter of controversy.11 Therefore, when someone tries
to intrude or invade another person’s privacy using Right to Information as a tool it becomes
a matter of concern.

Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the United Nations declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other
international treaties. In India, right to Privacy has not been explicitly mentioned as a
fundamental right in the Indian Constitution. However, in the light of recent judicial
pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the Right to Privacy has been recognized as a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law”. Therefore, right to Privacy is protected as an
intrinsic part of personal life and liberty enshrined in the Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.12

3.2 Evolution of Right to Privacy in India

The Right to Privacy has evolved over time through various case laws and enactments. M.P.
Sharma v. Satish Chandra13 was the first case before the Supreme Court wherein it had an
opportunity of considering the constitutional status of the right to privacy in the context of
state power of search and seizer, but a very narrow view of constitutional provisions was
taken in this case. Unfortunately, the opportunity was missed and the right to privacy could
not be put into the public law.

11
Shiv Shankar Singh, Privacy and Data Protection in India: A Critical Assessment, Journal of the Indian Law
Institute, Vol. 53 Issue 4, 663-665 (2013)
12
Puttuswamy v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
13
1954 AIR 300
 Page |7

In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P14, the petitioner was charged and tried for committing
dacoity and he was subjected by the police to domiciliary visits and surveillance. While
determining the validity of such visits and surveillance by the police, the apex court
examined whether the right to privacy formed a part of personal liberty. It observed that
personal liberty is a compendium of rights that go to make up the personal liberty of an
individual and that the right to life in Art. 2 1 of our constitution is similar to that of
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the US Constitution. Once again in Govind v. State
of Maharashtra15, the court did not hold that right to personal liberty embraces right to
privacy.

The change in approach of courts with respect to right to privacy can be seen from the case of
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 16 where the Supreme Court held that
“right to life and personal liberty includes the right to privacy and right to privacy includes
telephone conversation in the privacy at home or office and thus telephone tapping violates
Art. 21.

3.3 Data Protection Bill and Right to Privacy

In December 2019, the government introduced the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, in
parliament, which would create the first cross-sectoral legal framework for data protection in
India. It is yet to become an act. The bill has received both positive and negative responses
from the citizens. There are various issues with the bill such as it provides overwhelming
exemptions to the government17, promotes data localization which can be used for individual
profiling and gives access to individual data to various commercial entities.18

The impact of the Data Protection Bill, 2019 on the right to privacy can only be seen after the
bill is enacted and implemented, however until then it is necessary to introduce legal
safeguards against such unbridled powers of the executive which is impeding the effective
operation of data privacy and corroding the democratic values and the rule of law in the
process.
14
AIR 1963 SC 1295
15
AIR 1961 MP 320
16
(2004) 1 S.C.C 712
17
Section 35 and 36 of Data Protection Bill, 2019
18
Anirudh Burman, Surveillance power, diluting privacy: Why Modi govt’s data bill needs urgent modification,
The Print accessed on July 7, 2020 at 05:01 pm https://theprint.in/opinion/surveillance-power-diluting-privacy-
why-modi-govts-data-bill-needs-urgent-modification/382854/
 Page |8

CHAPTER 4: RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY –

BALANCE OR CONLICT?

Right to Information and Right to Privacy have both been recognised as fundamental rights,
as stated above. Prima facie there appears to be a conflict between the two rights. Though
conceptually, RTI and Right to Privacy are complementary and in conflict of each other.
While RTI increases access to information, the right to privacy veils it instead. At the same
time, they both function as citizen rights safeguarding liberty against state overreach.

The government stores a lot of personal information on individuals. This ranges from income
tax returns and driving licence details to census data and medical information. When an
application is made under the RTI Act for disclosure of some information on an identifiable
individual, there is a conflict between the RTI and the RTP.19

Personal information can be denied if it infringes an individual’s privacy. A good example is

our medical records. Such information, the disclosure of which would invade someone’s
privacy, is exempt from the RTI requirements

4.1 Third Party Information

As per Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, there is no obligation on any citizen to disclose
information which is personal or has no relation to any public activity or interest unless
Central or State Public Information Officer is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the
disclosure.20 Naturally, this provision has been misused by the public authorities many times
to deny disclosure of information if these are related to third party information without proper
application of mind. The PIOs most of the times claim the absence of public interest and
rejects the application prima facie. This practice is against the spirit of the RTI Act and
defeats the entire purpose of enactment of the legislation.21

Section 11(1) of the Act provides that if a PIO intends to disclose any information or record
or part thereof on a request made under the Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a
third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the PIO, shall, within five
days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request
19
David Banisar, The Right to Information and Privacy: Balancing Rights and Managing Conflicts, SSRN
Electronic Journal
20
Section 8 (1)(j) of Right to Information Act, 2005
21
N M Mishra, Privacy and the Right to Information Act, 2005, accessed on July 7, 2020 at 03:17 pm,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473905/
 Page |9

and of the fact that the PIO intends to disclose the information or record or part thereof, and
invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the
information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view
while taking a decision about disclosure of information provided that except in the case of
trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest
in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such
third party.22

The conflict between the right to personal privacy and the public interest in the disclosure of
personal information was recognized by the legislature by exempting purely personal
information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Section 8(1)(j) says that disclosure may be
refused if the request pertains 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." Thus, personal information including tax returns, medical
records etc. cannot be disclosed in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.23

4.2 Supremacy to Public Interest or Privacy?

There are differing opinions among the courts as to which right is superior, which right will
prevail over the other if the need requires.

Fundamental rights, though justiciable, are not unrestricted. Parliament can impose
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of these rights.24 Similarly, even Right to Privacy is not
absolute. It may be restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health and
morals, or protection of rights and freedoms of others.

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh25 it was held “Assuming that the fundamental right
explicitly guaranteed to a citizen has penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a
fundamental right, and it must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public
interests.” The court further observed that" if there is a conflict between fundamental rights of
two parties that right which advances public morality would prevail.

22
Section 11 (1) of The Right to Information Act, 2005
23
Ms. Gauri Suri and Ms. Ruhi, RTI and Right to Privacy: Congruence or Conflict, Fast Forward Justice’s Law
Journal, Issue II Volume II, 2019
24
Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala
25
(1975) 2 SCC 148
 P a g e | 10

In M.Vijaya v. The Chairman, Singaren Collieries 26 the issue was the competing rights of a
private party and public right with reference to right to privacy of a person suspected of
suffering from AIDS. the court held at if there is an apparent conflict between the right to
privacy of a person suspected of HIV not to submit himself forcibly for medical examination
and the power and duty of the state to identify HIV infected persons for the purpose of
stopping further transmission of the virus, in the interests of the general public, it is necessary
for the State of identify HIV positive cases and any action taken in that regard cannot be
termed as unconstitutional. Even in this case, public health prevailed over right to privacy.

In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India 27 Supreme Court discussed
whether declaration of assets of an elected candidate is infringement of his right to privacy or
it is in favour of voter’s right to information. The court held that "Privacy primarily concerns
the individual. It therefore, relates to an overlaps with the concept of liberty. The most
serious advocate of privacy must confess that there are serious problems of defining the
essence and scope of the right. Privacy interest in autonomy must also be placed in the
context of other rights and values”.

Finally, Central Information Commission in the matter of Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs

CPIO28 while deciding the case observed that “There has to be harmonious construction of
both the provisions. The Supreme Court in a plethora of cases had held that the right to
privacy is an evolving right which may vary from case to case and depending upon the facts
of the case and public interest involved in disclosure of information.”

The Bench ruled that right to privacy is on a higher pedestal than right to information. It said
that “Right to Privacy being a facet to the Right to Life and personal liberty is on a higher
pedestal and a harmonious construction of the provisions of the RTI Act and of the
Constitutional provisions would necessitate reading down of the provisions of the RTI Act so
as to avoid illegality of the statutory provisions.”

CHAPTER 5: HARMONIZING RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND PRIVACY

26
AIR 2001 AP 502
27
AIR 2003 SC 2363
28
(CIC/MHOME/A/2019/107928)
 P a g e | 11

Prima facie, together, the RTI and RTP present us a paradox. While the two rights frequently
look irreconcilable, act in complementary ways to confer individual rights and promote
greater government accountability and transparency. However, this would require the country
to work on reconciliation of the two. There needs to be common definitions and internal
consistency within the entire framework to limit conflict and establish a balance. It is
essential to accentuate the complimentary nature of both the rights to reach an equilibrium.

However, challenging as it may be, it is still possible to demarcate the extent to which
personal information may be disclosed in the general interest. One of the methods by which
the gap between the two can be bridged is given below:

5.1 A two-body model

In most jurisdictions, the information commission and privacy commission are separate and
distinct bodies. In a few countries, however, the RTI commission is a single-function body
responsible for balancing competing interests. These jurisdictions include Hungary, Mexico
and the UK.29

Countries which have two commissions are able to champion both these rights distinctively.
This is because they are unencumbered by the onerous task of balancing competing interests.
However, this clarity of mandate and authority comes with a price tag. Disagreements
between the two authorities can heighten transaction and opportunity costs involved in
reconciliation, reducing overall efficiency in grievance redressal.

5.2 A single-body model

Adopting a single commission would remove the transaction costs associated with conflict
between two commissions. This would increase administrative efficiency and, in turn, public
welfare. However, the possibility of a conflict between the two competing rights may end up
prejudicing the authority in favour of one of them, endangering their intended harmonization.
Moreover, additional mandates may over-burden the authority and undermine its efficacy,
reducing social welfare instead.30

Given the huge democracy that India is, it wouldn’t function efficiently in a single body
model. Too much power concentration in one body would result in red tapism. It would lead

29
Siddharth Sonkar, The Right to Privacy vs Right to Information, Live Mint (2018)
30
Ms. Gauri Suri and Ms. Ruhi, RTI and Right to Privacy: Congruence or Conflict, Fast Forward Justice’s Law
Journal, Issue II Volume II, 2019
 P a g e | 12

to corruption in the office and ultimately personal data of citizens would be at risk. Therefore,
the optimal solution for India is indeed two independent bodies.

The chief ambition of the Indian Constitutional scheme is based upon ‘balance of rights’ and
not ‘demarcation of rights’ because it provides no straitjacket formula to determine which
right should prevail over the other. The principle of indivisibility of fundamental right
requires that both rights carry equal weight. Neither right can be used as a trump over the
other nor must alternative means be employed to resolve the conflict. To conciliate the two
rights in majority cases becomes a constitutional challenge and it needs to be squared through
the agency of judicial process to tussle with nuances and subjectivities.31

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.

CONCLUSION

Both Right to Information and Right to Privacy are fundamental to keep the spirit of
democracy alive in any country. True democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right
31
Anushka Jain, Friends or Foes? The Right to Information vs. The Right to Privacy, The Bastion,
https://thebastion.co.in/ideas/friends-or-foes-the-right-to-information-vs-the-right-to-privacy/ accessed on July
09, 2020 at 09:00 pm
 P a g e | 13

to participate in the affairs of the polity of the country. Privacy is an intrinsic recognition of
heterogeneity, of the right of the individual to be different and to stand against the tide of
conformity in creating a zone of solitude. Privacy protects the individual from the searching
glare of publicity in matters which are personal to his or her life.

For a clean and transparent democracy, it is important that 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 v. Central Information Commission.32 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.

The Bench in the landmark judgment of K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India 33 observing right
to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, laid down the
following parameters to be followed for intercepting the right to privacy of an individual. (i)
there must be legal object; (ii) there must be legal framework; (iii) there must be nexus
between the objective to be achieved and the privacy to be compromised.

The bench in Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs CPIO opined that Right to Privacy of the
party may not be absolute if the same is falling within the ambit of the parameters mentioned
in the Puttaswamy judgement.

This decision of the Central Information Commission has harmonized the conflicting
fundamental rights. The Bench has clarified that even though, right to Privacy is placed on a
higher pedestal than Right to Information, the same is not absolute and can be intruded if the
three parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Justice Puttaswamy case is fulfilled.

Therefore, this decision can be viewed as an important piece of document to settle the dispute
between right to privacy and right to information. However, it is up to the Courts to decide on
how to interpret this judgement and arrive at a conclusion since each conflict of right to
privacy and right to information has to be decided on case to case basis after a thorough
evaluation of facts and circumstances of the case.

32
CC 14781/2012)
33
(2017) 10 SCC 1
 P a g e | 14

REFERENCES

BOOKS

 M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th ed. 2012, Lexis Nexis, Haryana.

JOURNALS
 P a g e | 15

 Democracy and Transparency in the Indian State: The Making of the Right to Information
Act, Prashant Sharma, 2016
 Dr. PK Rana, Right to Privacy in Indian Perspective, International Journal of Law, Vol 2
Issue 4, 06-09 (2016)
 Ms. Gauri Suri and Ms. Ruhi, RTI and Right to Privacy: Congruence or Conflict, Fast
Forward Justice’s Law Journal, Issue II Volume II, 2019
 David Banisar, The Right to Information and Privacy: Balancing Rights and Managing
Conflicts, SSRN Electronic Journal
 Shiv Shankar Singh, Privacy and Data Protection in India: A Critical Assessment, Journal of
the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 53 Issue 4, 663-665 (2013)

ONLINE RESOURCES

 Anushka Jain, Friends or Foes? The Right to Information vs. The Right to Privacy, The
Bastion, https://thebastion.co.in/ideas/friends-or-foes-the-right-to-information-vs-the-right-to-
privacy/
 Siddharth Sonkar, The Right to Privacy vs Right to Information, Live Mint (2018)

 N M Mishra, Privacy and the Right to Information Act, 2005, NCBI

 Anirudh Burman, Surveillance power, diluting privacy: Why Modi govt’s data bill needs
urgent modification, The Print https://theprint.in/opinion/surveillance-power-diluting-privacy-
why-modi-govts-data-bill-needs-urgent-modification/382854/
 https://www.barandbench.com/news/rti-inbuilt-within-right-to-freedom-of-speech-and-
expression-bombay-hc
 Avani Bansal, The Power of Dissent and Silence Within, The Wire,
https://thewire.in/government/power-dissent-silence-within, accessed on July 07, 2020 at
08:37 pm