In today’s information-driven world, both the right to privacy and the right to information are recognized as essential human rights. For the most part, these two-rights work hand in hand, holding governments accountable to their citizens. However, conflicts can arise when requests are made for access to personal data held by government agencies. It’s crucial for states to develop clear mechanisms to identify potential issues and ensure a fair balance between the two rights when they intersect. 

RTI (Right to Information) and privacy are frequently referred to as “two sides of the same coin” since, in essence, they complement one another by safeguarding an individual’s personal private while fostering transparency and accountability in government.  

As more governments throughout the world enact RTI legislation, the relationship between privacy and these laws has grown increasingly contentious. So far, more than 50 countries have established both RTI and privacy protections, spurring critical discussions about how these rights coexist and evolve in a modern society. 

Right to information 

The Right to Information (RTI) empowers people with the fundamental right to request and access information held by government bodies. It stems from the freedom to “seek and receive information,” which is recognized globally as a core human right, and is an essential part of the broader right to free expression.  India took a long journey, spanning 82 years, to move from the secrecy of the colonial-era Official Secrets Act to a more transparent political system where citizens could claim their right to know. The RTI Act is rooted in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees our fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It’s true power lies in allowing ordinary citizens to demand transparency from the government. This has been a transformative step for Indian democracy, reflecting a government that is increasingly responsive to the needs and demands of its citizens. 

Right to privacy 

Every individual has an inherent need for privacy. It is a fundamental human urge to establish personal boundaries and maintain a sense of solitude. Historically, the Indian Constitution did not explicitly recognize the right to privacy as a fundamental right. 

A significant step in this direction came with the Supreme Court’s ruling in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, where the Court held that the “right to life and personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to privacy. This landmark ruling set the foundation for privacy rights in India, emphasizing that personal communication and privacy must be protected as an integral part of individual liberty. 

Due to their dual nature, the rights to knowledge and privacy frequently conflict with one another. In some cases, upholding one can result in the other being limited. As a result, the right to information may not violate someone’s privacy unless doing so is required to further the interests of the general public. This harmony guarantees governance openness while enabling people to exercise their right to privacy. 

The interplay between the rights 

The rights to privacy and information, while seemingly at odds, represent two critical aspects of individual and societal well-being. They are like two sides of the same coin—balancing personal freedom with transparency. Upholding one right often seems to limit the other, making it essential to ensure that neither is unduly compromised. The principle is clear: unless there is a compelling public interest, the right to information should not intrude on an individual’s right to privacy, allowing people to enjoy their private lives without undue interference. 

This delicate balance has been reflected in several landmark Supreme Court rulings, each exploring the intersection of these rights. 

In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to collect information on the assets and liabilities of candidates contesting elections for Parliament or State Legislatures, including those of their spouses and dependents. The decision emphasized transparency, ensuring that voters have access to critical information about their representatives. 

However, this mandate was challenged in PUCL v. Union of India (2003), where it was argued that disclosing the assets of spouses infringed upon their right to privacy. The Court, while recognizing the importance of privacy, ruled that in this case, the public’s right to information took precedence. By making this information public, voters could make more informed choices, and in such a conflict, the right to information serves the greater good. The ruling essentially stated that when public interest is at stake, the right to information outweighs the right to privacy. 

On the other hand, the Court, in Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2018), refused to disclose personal information about a Canara Bank employee, as it neither served public interest nor fell within the scope of the right to information. The decision clarified that when no public good is being advanced, the right to privacy holds greater weight. 

These rulings highlight the jurisprudential principle that a breach of privacy is justified only if it serves a legitimate and larger public interest. This balance is encapsulated in Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, which protects personal information unless its disclosure is warranted by public interest. It reads:
“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 Act does not clearly define terms such as “personal information,” “public activity,” “unwarranted invasion,” or even “public interest.” This ambiguity arises from India’s lack of a comprehensive privacy law. As a result, judges often have the discretion to determine whether the information in question serves the greater public good, leaving room for subjective interpretation. 

Conclusion 

Both the right to privacy and the right to information are designed to ensure that governments remain open and accountable. Clear legal definitions and consistent standards for personal information under data protection and access to information laws would resolve many conflicts. Establishing robust institutional frameworks and clear public interest criteria can help balance these rights, ensuring privacy and transparency coexist. Public interest should guide how authorities handle information requests, with disclosures made accordingly. 

​​References 

• ​“About Right to Information Act 2005.” Right to Information. Accessed October 4, 2024. https://rti.gov.in/.  

• ​“Legal Analysis of Right To Privacy In India.” Legal Service India – Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources. Accessed October 4, 2024. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-676-legal-analysis-of-right-to-privacy-in-india.html.  

• ​“Privacy: Anti-Social Concept or Fundamental Right?” Genetic Privacy, May 16, 2002, 28–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511495342.005.  

• ​Tzanou, M. “Data Protection as a Fundamental Right next to Privacy? ‘Reconstructing’ a Not so New Right.” International Data Privacy Law 3, no. 2 (March 20, 2013): 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipt004.  

• ​“Year.” People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India & Ors. Accessed October 4, 2024. https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/pucl-vs-union-of-india.  

• ​People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 568, (1997) 1 SCC 301   

• ​ Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) (3) SCR 294   

• ​ Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2018) 11 SCC 426   

• ​ PUCL v. Union of India (2003) 2 S.C.R. 1136   ​