Context of the Judicial Ruling
PM CARES Fund and the Limits of RTI Disclosure: The Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling clarifying the scope of privacy protections under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court held that the PM CARES Fund enjoys the right to privacy under the RTI framework, even if it is assumed to be a public authority.
This decision has wide implications for transparency laws and the treatment of third-party information. It reinforces that public functions alone do not automatically dilute statutory privacy protections.
Key Observations of the Court
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, along with Justice Tejas Karia. The Bench observed that entities performing public functions do not lose their privacy rights merely due to government association.
The court clarified that the PM CARES Fund, even if treated as “State,” remains a juristic personality. Therefore, it cannot be stripped of privacy protections solely because of government control or supervision.
Interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
The ruling relied heavily on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This provision exempts disclosure of personal or third-party information unless a larger public interest is clearly established.
The Bench emphasized that the privacy protection here is statutory in nature, not derived from Article 21 of the Constitution. It applies uniformly to all third parties under the RTI mechanism.
Static GK fact: Section 8 of the RTI Act contains ten exemption clauses that balance transparency with privacy and national interest.
Understanding Third-Party Rights Under RTI
The court clarified that RTI law does not differentiate between public and private third parties. Trusts, societies, cooperative bodies, and private individuals are all entitled to third-party safeguards.
Information relating to such entities cannot be disclosed without following the due process prescribed under the Act. This includes mandatory notice to the concerned third party before disclosure.
The Bench illustrated this using examples such as schools or clubs run by trusts. Their public-facing nature does not nullify their statutory privacy rights.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The case originated from an RTI application filed by Girish Mittal. He sought disclosure of documents submitted by the PM CARES Fund to claim tax exemptions.
The Central Information Commission had directed the Income Tax Department to disclose the information. However, this direction was later set aside by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.
Mittal then appealed before the Division Bench, leading to the present ruling. The Bench upheld the privacy exemption and overturned the CIC’s directive.
Broader Implications for Transparency Law
The judgment reinforces a key principle of the RTI regime. Transparency must operate within clearly defined statutory limits.
Public interest alone is not sufficient to override privacy protections. A demonstrable and compelling public interest must be established.
Static GK Tip: The RTI Act follows a disclosure-with-exemptions model, not an absolute transparency framework.
Static Usthadian Current Affairs Table
PM CARES Fund and the Limits of RTI Disclosure:
| Topic | Detail |
| Why in News | Delhi High Court upheld PM CARES Fund’s privacy under RTI |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Legal Provision | Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act |
| Core Issue | Third-party privacy protection |
| Nature of Right | Statutory, not constitutional |
| Case Filed By | Girish Mittal |
| Earlier Authority | Central Information Commission |
| Key Principle | Public function does not erase privacy |
