This article has been written by Ms. Vaaghdevi, a student studying B.A.LLB from Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam. The author is a 1st-year law student.
Introduction:
In the contemporary information age, both the right to privacy and the right to information are fundamental human rights. In most cases, these two rights work together to make governments responsible to people. Nonetheless, there might be a disagreement between when there is a request for access to private data kept by governmental entities. States must create methods for identifying key topics to prevent disputes and balance the rights when the two rights intersect.
RTI and privacy are sometimes referred to as “two sides of the same coin” since they primarily serve as complimentary rights that advance people’s right to privacy and rights to government accountability.
As more nations adopt RTI laws, there is now a lot of discussion about the link between privacy and these laws around the globe. Both laws have been enacted thus far in more than 50 nation.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
People have a fundamental human right to request information kept by government entities, according to the right of access to information held by government organisations (RTI). It comes from having the freedom to “seek and receive information,”1 which is an expressive right and is acknowledged as a human right all around the world. Each citizen has the right to seek information from a public entity, and the organisation is legally obligated to comply, unless there is a strong legal basis to decline. Our basic right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution serves as the foundation for the Right To Information..RTI’s main strength is that it gives any citizen the ability to request information.
Right to information act:
India has taken 82 years to make the shift from a colonial-era Official Secrets Act-legitimized opaque political system to one where people may demand the right to knowledge. On 15th June 2005, the landmark right to information act was given assent by the then president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and came into force on 12th October 2005. This act was enacted to enable citizens to access information under the control of public authorities, hence promoting transparency and accountability in government functions.
The Access to Information Act of 2005, which was just passed, represents a substantial information. Thus, it places power directly in the hands of the foundation of democracy- the people- without the need for pressure organizations alliances. This is a significant transition for Indian democracy since it shows how attentive the government is to the demands of the people.
Applicability
The Act applies both to Central and State Governments and all public authorities. A public authority (sec. 2(h)) which is bound to furnish information means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted
(a) by or under the Constitution,
(b) by any other law made by Parliament,
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature,
(d) by a notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government and includes any
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed,
(ii) non-government organization substantially financed – which, in clauses (a) to (d) are all, directly or indirectly funded by the appropriate Government.
Exemptions
Sec. 8 exempts from disclosure certain information and contents as stated in Sub-clauses (a) to (j) thereof. Sub-clause (b) exempts information, which is expressly forbidden by any court of law or tribunal or the dispute of which may constitute contempt of court. Sub-clause (g) exempts information the disclosure of which would endanger life, or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purpose. Sub-clause (h) exempts information, which could impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Sub-clause (i) exempts Cabinet papers. It is important to note that the Act specifies that intelligence and security organizations are exempted from the application of the Act. However, it is provided that in case the demand for information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations, the Act shall apply even to such institutions.
The landmark case in freedom of the press in India was Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, , the right to information was held to be included within the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a)
In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Court explicitly stated that it is not in the interest of the public to ‘cover with a veil of secrecy the common routine business – the responsibility of officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption.’
In SP Gupta v. Union of India, the right of the people to know about every public act, and the details of every public transaction undertaken by public functionaries was described.
Right to Privacy:
Each and every individual has an innate need for privacy. In actuality, establishing personal boundaries with nearly absolute isolation is a basic human urge. The right to solitude is what is meant by privacy in general. Before, the Right to Privacy was not recognised as a fundamental right by the Indian Constitution. Because neither the Constitution nor any other law in our nation specified this notion, the judiciary in our country is the only one to receive credit for establishing the concept of privacy.
In fact in a landmark judgment in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 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
In R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N popularly known as “Autoshanker case” the Supreme Court has expressly held the “right to privacy” or the right to be let alone is guaranteed by Art. 21 of the constitution. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own ,his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing and education among other matters. No one can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. However, position may be differed if he voluntarily puts into controversy or voluntarily invites or raised a controversy
Right to information versus Right to privacy
The rights to privacy and information are at odds with one another. They are the two sides of the same coin, and upholding one right will result in the opposite becoming true. So, unless it is required for the greater interest of the public, the right to information prohibits anyone from obtaining information that intrudes on the privacy of any individual, enabling people to enjoy their right to privacy.
The following rulings rendered by the supreme court reflected the same:
In the case Union of India v. Association for the Democratic Reforms (2002), Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to collect information from the candidates competing in the elections either for parliament or state legislature and from their spouses and dependants about their assets and liabilities.
However, this was later contested in the case of PUCL v. Union of India (2003), where it was argued that disclosing information about the assets and liabilities of the spouses of candidates would violate their right to privacy. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this would advance the right to information of the voter and the citizenry.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that this would advance the right to information of the voter and the citizenry. Accordingly, the Supreme court ruled that when there is a conflict between the right to information and privacy, the former prevails as it serves the larger public interests.
in the case Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2018), wherein the court refused to disclose the personal information of a Canara bank employee as it was outside the scope of exercising the right to information; moreover, it was not serving any public interest.Therefore, as per the Jurisprudence, it is clear that when there is a breach of the right to privacy, it overweighs the right to information if it is in no way related to the greater public good.
The same was laid in the balancing act under Sec 8(1)(j) of the right to information act. Which reads as follows:
‘Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,
- 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, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.’
However, the words like “personal information,” “public activity,” “unwarranted invasion,” or even “public interest” were not defined by the right to information act, which is due to the lack of privacy laws in India. Consequently, many definitions are not accurate and precise in jurisprudence. These vague terms have retained the disparity between the rights as the law does not classify them.Thus, it leaves to the judges’ discretion to classify the information to be in the interests greater public good or not on a factual basis. While this may invite the biases of the judges misleading the purpose of the act of maintaining the privacy of the individuals while exercising the right to information.
CONCLUSION:
Both rights are meant to assist the person in ensuring that government is open and responsible. By adopting precise definitions in laws, the majority of problems may be laws, regulations, procedures, and control mechanisms. Due diligence would guarantee that the definitions of personal information under the data protection and access to information legislation are consistent. In order to strike a balance between these rights and guarantee that data privacy and the right to knowledge coexist peacefully, appropriate institutional frameworks and public interest criteria should be developed.
Public interest should be at the forefront of how the public authorities interact with applicants, and disclosures should be made in line with that.
REFERENCES
- AIR 1973 SC 106
- AIR 1975 SC 2299
- AIR 1982 SC 149
- (2004) 1 SCC 712
- (1994) 6 SCC 632
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening