INTRODUCTION

The right to privacy and the right to information are the two most crucial rights to ensure that
people can live their lives with integrity and dignity. These two rights are necessary for
maintaining a person's quality of life. While people's right to privacy allows them to keep their
personal issues and affairs private, citizens' right to information allows them to hold various
government entities accountable for vital public issues. The right to privacy and the right to
know work together to hold the government accountable to the people. However, there is a clash
between these rights when a request for access to personal information held by government
bodies is made.

From the beginning, the right to information has been a colossal feature. It aimed to give
individuals access to information that was previously under the jurisdiction of government
entities as well as to promote information disclosure on a large scale. It has primarily ensured
that entities are accountable to the public and demonstrated that efficient enforcement and
disclosure mechanisms are critical for the enforcement functioning of public authority.

Despite the fact that the right to privacy and the right to information are not directly listed in the
Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that both of these rights are fundamental rights.
The Right to Information is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, as does the
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. The Right to Privacy is protected by Article 21 –
Right to Life, which is the heart of the Indian Constitution.

They work together to provide Indian citizens with the rights they value most and to hold the
government responsible to the people. Many people believe that if citizens use the RTI,
government agencies will seek refuge under the RTP. This was debunked recently by the
Supreme Court of India, which decided that the Office of the Chief Justice of India is subject to
the Right to Information Act. It stated that the public interest should be upheld while disclosing
any information under that law. One cannot wear a garb of privacy as protection from the
information disclosure requirements under the RTI Act.
The right to Information confers a basic right on citizens allowing them to legally access
information maintained by government bodies or instrumentalities. At the same time, the Right
to Privacy permits individuals to have control over and oversight of personal information about
them kept by the government and private entities, such as their Aadhar card or bank account
information. The Right to Information and Right to Privacy are mutually reinforcing and
complementary. are 2 sides of a single coin. They are complimentary and
supplementary to one another. However, due to the character of the these 2, a dispute has arisen
between them. More than 110 countries have globally recognized Right to Privacy and Right to
Privacy and have adopted them [ 1]. A lot of countries have guaranteed Right to Information in its
constitution [2].

When we consider the current situation, we can see how technology has taken over our lives. In
terms of Privacy, the individual’s privacy is being increasingly challenged by new technologies
and trends in society and with the introduction of the internet, the invasion of an individual’s
privacy has become routine. Individually sensitive personal data is relatively easy to leak. As a
result, several nations have enacted comprehensive laws that provide individuals some rights to
control over the gatherings and use of their personal information by public and commercial
authorities in order to promote it. The right to knowledge is a “Sine quo non” of democratic
politics, which indicates that it cannot exists without the existence of democracy.

Access to Information is being facilitated through new information and communications

technologies, and websites with searchable government documents are becoming increasingly
widespread as well. International bodies are creating conventions, and international courts are
issuing pertinent rulings. Many controversies have erupted about the regulations governing
access to personal information kept by the public agencies as a result of availability, legislation
and judicial rulings. As equal human rights, neither privacy nor access to information now take
precedence. As a result, it's critical to consider how to adopt and implement the two rights, as
well as the laws that govern them, so that both are honored. Both rights must be assessed in a fair
and balanced manner.

1
Mendel (2008) and Banisar (2006)
2
Global RTI Rating - https://sdg.iisd.org/news/unesco-finds-125-countries-provide-for-access-to-information/

pg. 2
 RIGHT TO INFORMATION

From the Official Secrets Act of British legislation, which theoretically guaranteed residents the
right to access information, to right of information Act 2005, India has seen numerous highs and
lows. Citizens now have more power and rights as a result of the changes that have transpired.

The Constitution inherently guarantees the freedom to Information. The Indian Parliament
enacted the Right to Information Act, 2005 to provide a practical regime for preserving and
safeguarding information. The Act provides citizens with a powerful weapon to obtain
information from the government as a matter of right. This is law is quite extensive in character,
in that it includes all aspects and subjects of governance and it has the broadest reach, as it
applies to all levels of government, including federal, state, and local governments, as well as
beneficiaries of government funds. [3]

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and right to seek receive and impart information and ideas
through any media regardless of frontiers.” [4]

In the transactions of organized people with one another, the state has a duty to uphold
international law and treaty obligations. As a result, it obligates the state to carry out these
international rules and duties relating to the right to information in relation to the government
and public authorities. Since these numerous international organizations have created their own
set of standards and regulations, they have an impact on domestic legislation as well. As a result,
it needs the states' active engagement and compliance with it. The 1992 Rio Declaration places
great pressure on international institutions and organizations to develop policies that promote
public engagement and information access.

WHAT IS INFORMATION?
The term “INFORATION” means records, documents, memos, opinions or data material held in
any electronic format or in any paper or information relating to any private body that can be

3
Guide on RTI Act 2005
4
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 Art. 19

pg. 3
accessed by a public authority under any other law [ 5]. The right to access information held by
government agencies is considered as a fundamental human right to seek and receive information
is derived from the right to information. Anyone who wishes to obtain information may submit
an official request to an organization under RTI. And under RTI Act, that public body is legally
obligated to reply to such requests. RTI is defined as the universal right to access or obtain
information held by public bodies.

"The mere exercise of democracy" necessitates the RTI (OAS 2003) [ 6]. Democracy is built on
citizen consent, which requires the government to inform citizens about its operations and
recognize their right to participate. On behalf of citizens, government collect data and the public
can only genuinely engage in the democratic process if it is informed on the government's
activities and policies [7]. The RTI is also useful for preventing abuses, mismanagement, and
corruption, as well as upholding basic economic and social rights.

Despite the fact that the right to knowledge is not explicitly stated in the Indian Constitution of
1950, it has been interpreted through Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and
expression), and 21 (right to life), as well as other constitutional provisions. Several cases, such
as “Bennet Coleman v. Union of India” [8], have been decided in favor of the plaintiff. “Tata
Press Ltd. v. Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Ltd.” [9] etc. The identical articles were also
published in “Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh” [10], as interpreted in “Kharak Singh
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Govind v. State of M.P.” [11], and a variety of different
circumstances, to include a right to privacy as part of their scope.

5
Right to Information Act, 2005 Sect. 2(j)
6
In 2006, the Inter American Court of Human Rights ruled that “the State’s actions should be governed by the
principles of disclosure and transparency in public administration that enables all person’s subject to its jurisdiction
to exercise the democratic control of those actions, and so that they can question, investigate and consider whether
public functions are being performed and adequately. Access to State held information of public interest can permit
participation in public administration through the social control that can be exercised through such access”
(Marcel Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile judgement, September 9, 2006)
7
See, for example, ACHPR (2002); and the Joint Declaration of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion
and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom
of Expression, November 26,1999.
8
Australia Freedom of Information Act, 1982.
9
Bennet Coleman v. UOI, AIR 1973 SC 106
10
The preamble to the RTI Act, 2005
11
AIR 1975 SC 1378, (1975) 2 SCC 148

pg. 4
RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS NOT ABSOLUTE –
There is no right which is absolute in nature. Between rights there have to be check and balance
and RTI comes along with restrictions and is not absolute in nature. When it comes to National
Security and Interest, Right to Information will always be restricted. Section 8 of Right to
Information talks about restrictions imposed on right to access right to information.

The following are the exemptions from information disclosure –

1. Information that could jeopardize India's international relations, integrity, or national

security.
2. Information that has been specifically barred by a court or tribunal from being made
public, or if such disclosure would constitute contempt of court.
3. Confidential information protected by legal or professional privilege.
4. Information that might jeopardize a third party's competitive position, such as business
confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property.
5. Information obtained through a fiduciary connection.
6. Information that could endanger a person's life or physical safety, as well as reveal the
source of sensitive information or assistance supplied for law enforcement or security
purposes. Take the case of a whistleblower policy.
7. Information that would obstruct the investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of
criminals.
8. Documents and documents pertaining to cabinet paper.

pg. 5
 RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN INDIA
HISTORY OF RTI ACT –
It took India 82 years to transition from an opaque governing system legitimized by the colonial
Official Secrets Act to one in which citizens can demand access to information. The Right to
Information Act of 2005, which was just implemented, signifies a significant shift in Indian
democracy, as increased citizen access to information means the government will be more
responsive to community requests.

Article 19 of the Constitution ensures our fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression, which includes the right to knowledge. If we don't understand how our government
and public institutions work, we won't be able to make an informed opinion about them. The
core tenet of democracy is that citizens should be at the center of decision-making. The ability of
a democracy to function is also dependent on press freedom. As a result, it should come as no
surprise that keeping citizens informed is the fundamental purpose of a free press. As a result, it
is clear that the right of citizens to know is crucial.

The right to knowledge is a necessary component of participatory democracy, as it ensures

accountability and good government. The more the citizen's access to information, the more
responsive the government is to the demands of the community. In contrast, the more access
restrictions imposed, the higher the sense of "powerlessness" and "alienation." People can't fully
use their civic rights or make educated decisions if they don't have enough knowledge.

In India, three barriers continue to hinder the free flow of information:

1. Awareness and low-level literacy.

2. Legislature framework includes several pieces of restrictive legislation (Officials Secrets
Act, 1923)
3. the bureaucracy's entrenched culture of secrecy and arrogance.

pg. 6
APPLICIBILITY –
The federal and state governments, as well as all public organizations, are covered by the Act.
Any authority or body or self-government institution established or constituted (a) by or under
the Constitution, (b) by or under any other law made by Parliament, (c) by any other law made
by the State Legislature, (d) by a notification issued or order made by the appropriate
Government, and includes any I body owned, controlled, or substantially financed, and (ii) non-
government organization substantially financed.
RECORD UPDATING AND MAINTENANCE –

Sec. 4 makes it a requirement of public authorities to keep records for simple access and to
publish the names of the specific officers who should provide information and in reference to the
framing of rules, regulations, and other rules and regulations within 120 days. Sec. 4 subsection
(3) stipulates that all information must be extensively distributed and, in a form, and manner that
is freely accessible to the public in order to carry out subsection (1).

EXEMPTIONS –
Sec. 8 exempts certain information and contents from disclosure, as mentioned in Subclauses (a)
to (j). Information that is expressly prohibited by any court of law or tribunal, or the
disagreement over which may constitute contempt of court, is exempted under subclause (b).
Information that might endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of
information or assistance supplied in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes is
exempted under subclause (g). Information that could obstruct the investigation, apprehension, or
prosecution of offenders is exempted under subclause (h). Cabinet papers are exempted under
subclause I.

It's important to note that the Act exempts intelligence and security organizations from its
provisions. The Act will, however, apply to such institutions if the request for information is
related to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.

CONSTITUTIONAL AVVENUES REMAINS OPEN –

The finality given to the commissioners' and appellate authorities' orders is only for the purposes
of the Act, and the citizen has a right to appeal to the High Court under Art. 226 or, where it

pg. 7
concerns a fundamental right, to the Supreme Court under Art. 32, if he has exhausted the appeal
or second appeal remedies.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT - SUPREME

COURT ON THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Flowing from Art. 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution, right to information is a fundamental right is
now a well-settled proposition. The Supreme Court has regularly ruled in favor of citizens' right
to know over the years. The nature of this privilege, as well as the constraints that apply to it, has
been debated by the Supreme Court in several cases:

The development of the right to information as a part of the country's Constitutional Law began
with press petitions to the Supreme Court seeking enforcement of certain logistical implications
of the right to freedom of speech and expression, such as challenging government orders for
newsprint control, bans on paper distribution, and so on. The concept of the public's right to
know evolved as a result of these cases –

Landmark case in Freedom of Press in India was “Bennet Coleman and Co. vs. Union of
India” [12], the right to information was included to be within the right to freedom and
expression granted by Art. 19(1)(a).

The Supreme Court specifically said in “Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain” [13] that it is not in the
public interest to 'cover with a veil of secrecy the regular everyday business - the responsibility
of officials to explain and justify their activities is the fundamental safeguard against oppression
and corruption.'

The right of the people to know about every public act and the facts of every public transaction
conducted by public authorities was described in “SP Gupta v. Union of India” [14]. The court
decided in “People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India” [15] that exposing officials to
public scrutiny is one of the known methods for appointing clean and less polluted individuals to
lead the country.

12
AIR 1973 SC 106
13
AIR 1975 SC 2299
14
AIR 1982 SC 149
15
2003(001) SCW 2353 SC

pg. 8
"The primary aim of freedom of speech and expression is that all members should be able to
form their beliefs and transmit them freely to others," the court stated in Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs India [16]. In summary, the essential concept at stake is the
right of the people to know." Raj Narain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [17] "While there are
compelling justifications for providing the executive the right to evaluate what things may
jeopardize national security, those considerations do not support giving the executive exclusive
power to determine what matters may jeopardize the public interest," the Court wrote. There are
few subjects of public interest that cannot be safely discussed in public once national security
considerations are removed." (italics added) "In a system of responsibility like ours, where all
public servants must be accountable for their actions, there can be few secrets," Justice
K.K.Mathew continued. Every public act, everything that is done in a public fashion by their
public officials, has a right to be known by the people of this country. They have a right to know
the specifics of every public transaction in all of its ramifications. Though not absolute, the right
to know, which is drawn from the principle of freedom of expression, is a consideration that
should make one skeptical when confidentiality is claimed for transactions that have no bearing
on public security. The usual regular business is not in the public interest to be hidden behind a
shroud of secrecy. Such anonymity is rarely desired properly. It is commonly sought for the sake
of political parties, personal gain, or bureaucratic routine. The primary protection against tyranny
and corruption is authorities' obligation to explain or defend their actions."

In “Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India” [18], Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J., said that secrecy can be a cause
of corruption, but that sunlight and transparency can help to eliminate it.

The “Secretary General Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal” [19] High
Court of Delhi declared that - The Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the RTI Act,
and information provided by the CJI of the assets in public information is public information.
The contents of asset declarations made by SC Judges are to be considered as personal
information under section 2(f) of the Act, and may be viewed in line with the method established
under section 8(1). (j). Finally, if the CJI thinks it necessary, he may develop consistent criteria
in collaboration with Supreme Court Judges, defining the sort of information, applicable forms,
16
(1985) 1 SCC (641)
17
AIR 1975 SC 865
18
AIR2006 SC 3127
19
AIR 2010 Delhi 159

pg. 9
and, if necessary, the frequency of the statement to be made. The Supreme Court of India's CPIO
was ordered by the Delhi High Court to give the information requested by the respondent of the
declaration of assets.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner –

Supreme Court - The kind of the information requested would largely be found in the third
Respondent's income tax forms. The material requested by the Petitioner, such as copies of all
memos addressed to the third Respondent, show cause notices, and orders of
censure/punishment, was qualified as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,
the court agreed with the CIC. The Bench believed that an employee's performance in an
organization was primarily a private matter between the employee and the employer, and that
such details would normally fall under the category of "personal information," the disclosure of
which had no bearing on any public activity or interest. However, it was determined that such a
disclosure would be an unjustifiable infringement of that person's right to privacy.

However, if the authorities were satisfied that the greater public interest justified the disclosure
of such information in a specific case, the potential breach of privacy of the public servant could
be weighed against the greater public interest, and the decision to disclose such information
would justify the breach of privacy. The Petitioner was unable to demonstrate a genuine public
interest in acquiring information in this case, hence the petition was dismissed.

pg. 10
 LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA

1. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
 It's vital to have access to information about how the government works and how public
dollars are used.
 Public information officers who are responsible for distributing information to the public.
 • Acts define what is considered public and preserve the privacy of citizens and public
personalities.
 Public officials are permitted to disclose any information in which exemptions are
included, if public interest outweighs the protected interest.
 Individual Complaints: The CIC or SIC is in charge of accepting and investigating
individual complaints.
 Proactive disclosure: Governmental bodies are required to make some sorts of
information available ahead of time.
2. “OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT 1923”
 Official Secrets Act was established prior to Right to Information to protect sensitive
governmental documents and communications
3. “THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988”
 Assets and financial transactions involving prominent figures are extremely important.
This statute allows law enforcement to look into charges of corruption against
government officials.
4. THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992
 Financial information regarding a corporation is critical. By requiring transparency and
disclosure, the Act ensures that businesses are fairly portrayed to the public and are
unable to influence markets.

pg. 11
 CRITICISM
Right to Information Act 2005 has been criticized on several grounds. It does not place enough
emphasis on information pertaining to food, water, the environment, and other survival needs
that must be provided by public authorities on a proactive basis, but it does provide information
on demand. The Act also do not emphasize about educating people about the Act and about
people’s right to access information which is vital in a country with high rate of poverty and
illiteracy. If there is no education and widespread awareness about the possibilities, it would not
come in practice but will only be on paper. The Act also reinforces the controlling role of the
government officials who retain wide discretionary powers to withhold information.

Detractors have slammed the bill the most, citing the wide range of exclusions it enables.
Information about security, foreign policy, defense, law enforcement, and public safety is all
restricted. Cabinet files, which include documents of the council of ministers, secretaries, and
other officials, are protected from the Right to Information Act, effectively concealing the entire
decision-making process from public scrutiny.

Another criticism of the Act was that it exempted all files save those linked to social and
development projects from the Act's reach. When it comes to government policymaking, file
noting is quite significant. These file notes contain the rationale for certain actions or policy
changes, as well as why a particular contract was awarded or delayed in order to pursue a corrupt
person. As a result, the government's decision to exempt file notes from the Act has sparked
outrage.

pg. 12
 RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Individuals have the right to privacy, which states that their personal data belongs to them and
will not be used by any other entity or person unless they consent. According to Black's Law
Dictionary, privacy is defined as "leaving a person alone" and "non-interference in a person's
life." In Indian law, nowhere is the definite definition of “Privacy”. “The claim of individuals,
groups or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information
about them is communicated to others” is what Westin had defined about Privacy [ 20]. Privacy is
described as a zone of seclusion in which a person has control over a variety of personal data and
that data is kept hidden from inquisitive eyes. The person is free to experiment, develop
relationships, and build an autonomous self without fear of judgement or manipulation. S. Justice
Louis Brandeis referred to it as “the right to be left alone”.

Even on a global scale, privacy is protected by a strong legal framework. Persons are legally
protected against "arbitrary interference" with their privacy, family, home, correspondence,
honor, and reputation under Art. 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 [ 21], and
Art. 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [ 22], 1966. India
signed and ratified the ICCPR without reservation on April 10, 1979. Articles 7 and 8 of the
European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was ratified in 2012, recognize respect
for private and family life, home, and communications. Personal data must be secured and
obtained for a specific, lawful cause, according to Article 8 [23].

Privacy, according to an American court, is the right to live one's life in privacy without being
subjected to unnecessary and unwanted publicity [ 24]. Similarly, common law jurists have
defined privacy as the state of being private or isolated. According to Prof. Nizer, the right to
privacy refers to an individual's right to a private and anonymous life [ 25]. According to Dr.
Winfield, an invasion of privacy is when someone interferes with another's ability to keep

20
Westin Alan, Privacy and Freedom, pg. 7 (1970)
21
UNDHR, Art. 12
22
Ibid., Art. 17
23
Krishnadas Rajagopal, The lowdown on the right to Privacy, The Hindu, July 29, 2017.
24
Karby v. Hal Roach Studies, 1942 53 Cali. App. 207, 127
25
Michigan Law Review, 1939, P. 526

pg. 13
himself, his family, or his property hidden from the public eye [ 26]. In 1967, a panel of the United
States President's Office of Science and Technology defined privacy as an individual's freedom
to choose how much of his ideas, feelings, and personal life he will disclose with others.

There is no explicit position to the right to privacy in American Law so far as observed in case
Roe v. Wade [27] by Justice Blackman. However, in the case Stanley v. Georgia [28] judiciary
recognized the right to personal privacy and declared that right to privacy exists in the American
constitution. “Griswold v. Connecticut” [29] and “Meyer v. Nebraska” [30] are two cases
determined by US courts in which they discovered evidence of the right to privacy in various
constitutional amendments as well as in the Bill of Rights' form of touching from a distance. It is
said that privacy is such an important component of human dignity that it cannot be maintained
and enjoyed without it [31].

CONCEPT OF PRIVACY IN INDIA

The right to privacy is not recognized as a basic right in the Indian Constitution. The judiciary in
India is solely responsible for recognizing the idea of right to privacy, as neither the Constitution
nor any other act established the term. When we examine the different statutes in our country to
determine where the concept of privacy stands, we can see that several safeguards have been put
in place to protect personal information.

Kautilya puts out a step-by-step method for safeguarding the right to privacy while ministers are
consulted in his Arthashashtra. However, neither ancient nor modern law has ever defined the
term "private." It gives me great pleasure that the growing tendency of new constitutionalism in
our judiciary validates the need for legislation that protects one's privacy and dignity. According
to the Nordic conference of jurists and legal experts, the right to privacy is also fundamental for
human happiness.

26
Seventh edition 1963, pg. 726
27
410 U.S. 113 (1973)
28
394 U.S. 557 (1969)
29
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
30
262 U.S. 390 (1923)
31
Shriniwas Gupta, ‘Right to Privacy is an aspect of Human Dignity’, LAWYER (Madras) vol. 17 (1986) pp 67-73.

pg. 14
The right to privacy is a vital component of Art. 21's right to life. However, the right is not
absolute and may be lawfully limited for the prevention of crime, disorder, or the protection of
one's health or morals, as well as the protection of others' rights and freedoms. With the rise of
terrorism and similar activities, each government is attempting to do everything possible to stem
the tide.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS –
Nihal Chand v. Bhawan Deit –

The Allahabad High Court - in addition to being a legislative right, the right to privacy was
recognized for the first time as an autonomous right emanating from people's customs and
traditions. The right to privacy based on social custom is separate from the right to private based
on natural modesty and human morality, which is a birth right of any human being and should be
respected, and is not limited to any class, creed, color, or race. It is not acceptable to utilize one's
right to oppress others.'

M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra was [32]–

Supreme Court - this was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to assess
the constitutional status of the right to privacy in the context of the power of search and seizure,
but the Supreme Court took a very restrictive view of constitutional provisions in this case.
Unfortunately, the opportunity was lost, and the right to privacy was never codified into public
law.

Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. 1962 [33]–

Supreme Court - The petitioner was charged with and tried for dacoity, and he was subjected to
domiciliary visits and surveillance by the police. The Supreme Court considered whether the
right to privacy was a part of personal liberty when considering the constitutionality of such
police visits and monitoring. It was pointed out that personal liberty is a collection of rights that
work together to build up an individual's personal liberty, and that our constitution's right to life
is equivalent to the US Constitution's fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. The court also cited
Wolf v. Colorado [34], which ruled that the common law rule that a man's house is his castle
32
1954 AIR 300
33
AIR 1963 SC 1295
34
338 U.S. 25 (1949)

pg. 15
espoused a concept of personal liberty that was not based on a premise that no longer existed,
and that the domiciliary visit was incompatible with personal liberty and thus unconstitutional.

Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh [35]–

High Court - It was decided that the right to privacy is based on the idea that privacy is a
fundamental right, and that it is subject to compelling interest. It was deemed important and
necessary for maintaining the structure of Article 21 of the Constitution.

R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. [36]–

 Court of Appeals - The right to privacy is part of the constitutionally given right to
personal liberty. The right to privacy has been recognized as both a tort (a claim that can
be brought in court) and a fundamental right. A citizen's right to privacy, family,
marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing, and education are all protected, and no
one can broadcast anything about them unless:
 he knowingly or freely enters into controversy;
 the publishing is based on material from public records (save in situations of rape,
kidnapping, or abduction); and
 he is a public worker and the topic concerns their performance of official duties

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1996)]37] –

Supreme Court - Included communications in the right to privacy. In doing so, the Court
established guidelines that serve as the backbone for checks and balances in India's interception
laws, such as:

 Only Home Secretaries at the federal and state levels should be able to issue interception
orders.
 Before approving interception, two factors should be considered: whether the information
is necessary and whether it can be obtained through other means.
 The order should include the addresses and names of the people whose communications
must be intercepted.

35
AIR 1975 SC 1378, (1975) 2 SCC 148
36
(1994) 6 SCC 632
37
AIR 2003 SC 2363

pg. 16
Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka and others [38] –

The distinction between physical and mental privacy was recognized by the Supreme Court.
Criminal and evidentiary laws may require interference with a person's right to physical and
bodily privacy in some circumstances, but this cannot be used to compel a person "to send
intimate information regarding an important fact." In this case, the intersection of the right to
privacy and Article 20(3) was also established (self-incrimination). No one should be able to
interfere with a person's decision to make a remark because it is a personal one. Techniques like
narcoanalysis, polygraph testing, and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test are
employed without the subject's consent to invade his or her mental privacy.

Justice K.S.Puttuswamy (Retd.) & Another v. Union of India [39]–

Supreme Court - The issue of privacy was to be examined in light of the Unique Identity
Scheme, according to the Court. Given that there is no specific provision for privacy in Indian
law, the court had to decide whether such a right is guaranteed by the Constitution and, if so,
where this right comes from. According to India's Attorney General, privacy is not a basic right
guaranteed to Indian residents. Finally, the Court decided to refer the issue to a bigger
constitutional panel since past decisions that denied the existence of the right to privacy were
handed down by larger courts than those in which the right to privacy was recognized as a basic
right. This resulted in an unresolved controversy, prompting the Court to refer the case to a larger
bench for resolution.

38
AIR 2010 SC 1974
39
2017 (10) SCALE 1

pg. 17
 RIHT TO INFORMATION V. RIGHT TO PRIVACY – BALANCING
BOTH RIGHTS
Dr. Manmohan Singh opined “there is a fine balance required to be maintained between the
right to information and right to privacy, which stems out of the fundamental right to life and
liberty. The citizens’ right to know should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of
information encroaches upon someone’s personal privacy. But where to draw the line is a
complicated question” [40]

In the information era, RTI aims to ensure that powerful institutions are held accountable to
individuals. It gives people the tools they need to get information about themselves from
government agencies. RTI regulations are the only way to gain access to personal information,
however they do not apply to the private sector.

The European Court of Human Rights [ 41] declared in 1998, based on Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, that individuals have the right to demand information from
government agencies in circumstances where a lack of knowledge could jeopardize their health.

RTI laws are a main instrument used by privacy activists in many nations, including as the
United States and the United Kingdom, to identify abuses and actively campaign against them.
As a result, RTI is being used to improve privacy.

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RIGHT TO INFORATIONA AND RIGHT TO

PRIVACY
Due to the fact that the rights to information and privacy are based on drastically different ethical
foundations and so yield divergent theorems, confrontations are unavoidable. Individuals provide
a lot of information about themselves to the government in their dossiers, which they provide in
applications for various permits, permissions, and passports, or through disclosures such as
income tax returns or census data. A request for government records including information about
identifiable individuals can be made using the right to information.
40
Times of India, Oct 12, 2012, “RTI should be circumscribed if it encroaches on privacy”
41
Set up in 1959, the Court ensures that every member States of the Council of Europe respects the rights and
guarantees set out in the European convention of Human rights.

pg. 18
CONFLICT ARENA

1. Information Concerning a Third Party – A public organization should not

immediately reject a written request for information because it pertains to a third party.
The third party may consent to disclosure if the public authority is satisfied. The right to
life includes the right to a healthy life in which all of the human body's faculties are in
excellent working order, therefore disclosing that a potential spouse has HIV (+) in no
way violates the confidentiality or privacy norms.
2. Clash of 2 Fundamental Rights – The right to privacy and the right to enjoy a healthy
life, in particular, would be protected solely in the public interest.
3. Elected Officials – also significant agreement that information about elected or high-
ranking officials is less restricted, even when it relates to their personal lives.
4. Misuse of Privacy Exceptions - Officials' reasons for privacy are not always valid. "I
believe that a certain amount of privacy is important to good administration," remarked
former UK Cabinet Secretary Sir Richard Wilson. The right to information and the right
to privacy are both internationally recognized human rights with lengthy histories and
vital roles. The rights must be decided on an individual basis, considering the relative
importance of diverse interests. The key question is how the legislation, as well as the
implementing and oversight authorities, strike a balance between the two rights.

CONCEPT OF DATA PROTECTION

Data protection, also known as data security or information privacy, is a collection of rules and
processes that you can employ to secure the privacy, availability, and integrity of data. Data
plays a big role in our daily lives in the digital age, and it's present in a variety of ways. When we
shop online and have to fill in our name and address, for example. Data collecting can also be
hidden. Take data brokers, for example. We've probably never heard of them, but these
companies specialize in generating in-depth profiles of individuals for advertisers. A single
profile can include up to 1,500 data points, such as a person's sexuality, browsing history,
political affiliation, and medical information. Data protection is concerned with how third parties
handle information about the public, including how it is acquired, processed, shared, kept, and
used.
pg. 19
We can say that privacy and data protection are intertwined, with data protection serving as a
subset of privacy that occupies a larger role in an individual's life. Data protection is more
precise than privacy, but it is still dependent on the legal structures of different nations and how
they are implemented in accordance with the privacy laws in place.

The right to privacy was recognized in India after the Aadhar verdict, which also introduced the
notion of data protection. Because India lacks a specific data protection law to secure data and
information sent or received in any form, it must rely on a patchwork of laws, norms, and
guidelines. The Information Technology Act of 2000 [ 42] is the most important and well-known
law dealing with cybercrime and internet commerce. Under this legislation and guidelines, only
information shared in an electronic form is governed, not information exchanged in non-
electronic forms. However, the law's scope is limited, and it primarily covers sensitive personal
data and information obtained using corporate computer systems. There are no laws on data
localization, which is the main source of concern and the cause for the prohibition of Chinese
applications; to remedy this, a comprehensive data protection law is required. This was raised
during the debates over the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 [ 43], which was introduced in the
Lok Sabha and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for review and report after several
debates. The bill's most notable features are:

1. The Act's application to the processing of personal data.

2. Personal Data, Sensitive Personal Data, and Critical Personal Data are the three major
categories of personal data.
3. Data collectors' obligations and limits.
4. Personal data transmission restrictions outside of India.
5. Exemptions or precautions for government agencies and other laws in respect to personal
data processing
6. Under the law, there are offences and consequences for banned activities.
7. Other laws may be amended if needed.

42
IT Act of Indian Parliament notified on 17 October 2000. Its primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and
electronic commerce.
43
The “PDP Bill 2019” which defines both Personal and Non-Personal Data, is an substantive framework which
introduces a specialized regulatory approach for the Protection and Privacy of Data in ant form. Digital or non-
digital, in India

pg. 20
 PRIVACY EXEMPTION IN RTI LAW
Personal information can be withheld under the Right to Information Act. Section 8 of the RTI
Act attempts to balance any potential breach of a person's right to privacy by declaring that no
information should be disclosed if it would constitute an unjustified invasion of that person's
private. Unless a more compelling public interest justifies the publication of such information,
there is no responsibility to divulge personal information that has no link to any public activity or
interest and would result in an inappropriate invasion/intrusion of the individual's privacy [ 44].
The bar against disclosure is lifted if the applicant can show that there is a substantial public
interest in the information being disclosed, and the authority can disclose the personal
information after properly informing the third party, i.e. the party whose information or records
are being sought, and after considering the third party's viewpoint.

44
Right to Information Act 2005 sec. 8

pg. 21