DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

2020-21

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

FINAL DRAFT
On
RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN CONSONANCE WITH RIGHT TO
PRIVACY

Submitted by – Submitted to –
Akash Jain Mr. Manoj Kumar
B.A.LLB (Hon) Semester IX Asst. Professor (Law)
Enroll no. 160101018
INTRODUCTION
The right to privacy and the right to information are both essential human rights in the
Modern information society. For the most part, these two rights complement each other in
holding governments accountable to individuals. But there is a potential conflict between
these rights when there is a demand for access to personal information held by government
bodies. Where the two rights overlap, states need to develop mechanisms for identifying core
issues to limit conflicts and for balancing the rights.
The “two forms of protection against the Leviathan state that have the aim of restoring the
balance between the citizen and the state: On first inspection, it would appear that the right of
access to information and the right to protection of personal privacy are irreconcilable.
Laws provide a fundamental right for any person to access information held by government
bodies. At the same time, right to privacy laws grant individuals a fundamental right to
control the collection of, access to, and use of personal information about them that is held by
governments and private bodies. However, the reality is more complex.
Privacy and RTI are often described as “two sides of the same coin”—mainly acting as
complementary rights that promote individuals ’ rights to protect themselves and to promote
government accountability. The relationship between privacy and RTI laws is currently the
subject of considerable debate around the globe as countries are increasingly adopting these
types of legislation. To date, more than 50 countries have adopted both laws.
Privacy is increasingly being challenged by new technologies and practices. The technologies
facilitate the growing collection and sharing of personal information. Sensitive personal data
(including biometrics and DNA makeup) are now collected and used routinely. Public
records are being disclosed over the Internet. In response to this set of circumstances, more
than 60 countries have adopted comprehensive laws that give individuals some control over
the collection and use of these data by public and private bodies.
At the same time, the public’s right to information is becoming widely accepted. RTI laws
are now common around the world, with legislation adopted in almost 90 countries. Access
to information is being facilitated through new information and communications
technologies, and Web sites containing searchable government records are becoming even
more widely available. International Bodies are developing conventions, and relevant
decisions are being issued by international courts. Availability, legislation, and judicial
decisions have led to many debates about rules governing access to personal information that
is held by public bodies. As equal human rights, neither privacy nor access takes precedence
over the other. Thus it is necessary to consider how to adopt and implement the two rights
and the laws that govern them in a manner that respects both rights .There is no easy way to
do this, and both rights must be considered in a manner that is equal and balance.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION
The right of access to information held by government bodies (RTI) provides that individuals
have a basic human right to demand information held by government bodies. It derives from
the right of freedom of expression to “seek and receive information,”1 and is recognized
worldwide as a human right.2 Under this right, any person may make a request to a public
body; the body is legally required to respond and provide the information, unless there is a
legally compelling reason to refuse the request.
The RTI is “requisite for the very exercise of democracy” (OAS 2003).3 Democracy is based
on the consent of the citizens, and that consent turns on the government informing citizens
about its activities and recognizing their right to participate. The collection of information by
governments is done on behalf of its citizens, and the public is only truly able to participate
in the democratic process when it has information about the activities and policies of the
government.4 The RTI is also an important tool for countering abuses, mismanagement,
and corruption and for enforcing essential economic and social rights.

The following elements are typically found in national RTI laws:

 A right of an individual, organization, or legal entity to demand information from public

bodies, without having to show a legal interest in that information.

 A duty of the relevant body to respond and provide the information. This includes
mechanisms for handling requests and time limits for responding to requests.

1
See Universal Declaration on Human Rights
2
For a detailed overview of international standards on RTI, see Mendel (2008)and Banisar (2006
3
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 enable all persons 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 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, judgment of September 19,2006) .
4
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.
 Exemptions to allow the withholding of certain categories of information. These
exemptions include the protection of national security and international relations,
personal privacy, commercial confidentiality, law enforcement and public order,
information received in confidence, and internal discussions. Exemptions typically
require that some harm to the interest must be shown before the material can be withheld.

 Internal appeals mechanisms for requestors to challenge the withholding of information.

 Mechanisms for external review of the withholding of information. This includes setting
up an external body or referring cases to an existing ombudsman or to the court system.

 Requirement for government bodies to affirmatively publish some types of information

about their structures, rules, and activities. This is often done using information and
communications technologies.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN INDIA

 History Of The Right To Information Act

It has taken India 82 years to transition from an opaque system of governance, legitimized
by the colonial Official Secrets Act, to one where citizens can demand the right to
information. The recent enactment of the Right to Information Act 2005 marks a significant
shift for Indian democracy, for the greater the access of citizens to information, the greater
will be the responsiveness of government to community needs.
Right to Information is derived from our fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. If we do not have information on how our
Government and Public Institutions function, we cannot express any informed opinion on it.
Democracy revolves around the basic idea of Citizens being at the center of governance. And
the freedom of the press is an essential element for a democracy to function. It is thus
obvious that the main reason for a free press is to ensure that Citizens are informed. Thus it
clearly flows from this, that the Citizens Right To Know is paramount.
The Act and its rules define a format for requisitioning information, a time period within
which information must be provided, a method of giving the information, some charges for
applying and some exemptions of information which will not be given.

 The Need For The Right To Information

In recent years, there has been an almost unstoppable global trend towards recognition of the
right to information by countries, intergovernmental organizations, civil society and the
people. The right to information has been recognized as a fundamental human right, which
upholds the inherent dignity of all human beings. The right to information forms the crucial
underpinning of participatory democracy - it is essential to ensure accountability and good
governance. The greater the access of the citizen to information, the greater the
responsiveness of government to community needs. Alternatively, the more restrictions that
are placed on access, the greater will be the feelings of 'powerlessness' and 'alienation'.
Without information, people cannot adequately exercise their rights as citizens or make
informed choices.

The free flow of information in India remains severely restricted by three factors:

 The legislative framework includes several pieces of restrictive legislation, such as

the Official Secrets Act, 1923;
 The pervasive culture of secrecy and arrogance within the bureaucracy; and
 The low levels of literacy and rights awareness amongst India's people.

The primary power of RTI is the fact that it empowers individual Citizens to requisition
information. Hence without necessarily forming pressure groups or associations, it puts
power directly into the hands of the foundation of democracy- the Citizen.

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.

Maintenance And Publication Of Records

Sec. 4 makes it a duty of public authorities to maintain records for easy access and to publish
within 120 days the name of the particular officers who should give the information and in
regard to the framing of the rules, regulations etc. Subsection (3) of sec. 4 states that for the
performance of subsection (1), all information shall be disseminated widely and in such
form and manner, which is easily accessible to the public.

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.

Constitutional Avenues Remain Open

Under the Act, where a citizen has exhausted the remedy of appeal or second appeal, the
finality given to the orders of the commissioners and appellate authorities is only for the
purposes of the Act and the citizen has a right to approach the High Court under Art. 226 or
where it refers to a fundamental right, he may even approach the Supreme Court under Art.
32.

Right To Information As A Fundamental Right: Supreme Court On The Right To Information

The right to information is a fundamental right flowing from Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
is now a well-settled proposition. Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in
favour of the citizen’s right to know. The nature of this right and the relevant restrictions
thereto, has been discussed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases
The development of the right to information as a part of the Constitutional Law of the
country started with petitions of the press to the Supreme Court for enforcement of certain
logistical implications of the right to freedom of speech and expression such as challenging
governmental orders for control of newsprint, bans on distribution of papers, etc. It was
through these cases that the concept of the public’s right to know developed.
The landmark case in freedom of the press in India was Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union
of India,5 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 Narain6, 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 India7, the right of the people to know about every public act, and
the details of every public transaction undertaken by public functionaries was described. In
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union Of India8 the court held that exposure to public
scrutiny is one of the known means for getting clean and less polluted persons to govern the
country.
This principle was even more clearly enunciated in a later case in Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs India9 where the court remarked, “The basic purpose of
freedom of speech and expression is that all members should be able to form their beliefs and
communicate them freely to others. In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the
people’s right to know.” In State of U.P Vs. Raj Narain10. The Court said, “While there are
overwhelming arguments for giving to the executive the power to determine what matters
may prejudice public security, those arguments give no sanction to giving the executive
exclusive power to determine what matters may prejudice the public interest. Once

5
AIR 1973 SC 106
6
AIR 1982 SC 149
considerations of national security are left out there are few matters of public interest which
cannot be safely discussed in public”.(emphasis added) Justice K.K.Mathew went further to
say, “ In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be
responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a
right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public
functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its
bearing. The right to know which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though
not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for
transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security. To cover with
veil of secrecy, the common routine business is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy
can seldom be legitimately desired. It is generally desired for the purpose of parties and
politics or personal self-interest or bureaucratic routine. The responsibility of officials to
explain or to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption”.
In Kuldip Nayar v. UOI11 Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J. Secrecy becomes a source of corruption -
Sunlight and transparency have the capacity to remove it.

In Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, vs. Subhash chandra Agarwal High
Court of Delhi held that :The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and information so
given by CJI of the assets in public information. Declaration of assets by the SC Judges, is
'information u/s 2(f) of the Act and the contents of asset declaration are to be treated as
personal information, and may be accessed in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under section 8(1)(j). Lastly, the CJI, if he deems appropriate, may in consultation with the
Supreme Court Judges, evolve uniform standards, devising the nature of information,
relevant formats, and if required, the periodicity of the declaration to be made. The Delhi HC
directed that the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, shall release the information sought by the
respondent of the declaration of assets.

LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA

1. Right To Information Act, 2005

7
AIR 1982 SC 149
8
2003(001) SCW 2353 SC
9
(1985) 1 SCC 641)
10
AIR 1975 SC 865

11
AIR 2006 SC 3127
  All information that relates to the working of Government and the use of public funds is
critical.

 Designated officers for release of information responsible for releasing information to

the public;

Complaint Mechanism: The CIC or SIC is responsible for receiving and inquiring into
complaints by individuals;

Proactive disclosure: Governmental bodies are required to proactively release specified types
of information,

Act lays down clearly what is public, and in doing so protects the privacy of both citizens and
public figures.
Any public official is permitted to disclose any information (exemptions included) if public
interest outweighs the protected interest.

2. Official Secrets Act 1923

Prior to the Right to Information Act, the Official Secrets Act was established to protect
sensitive governmental documents and communications

3. The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988

In the context of the Prevention of Corruption Act information related to a public figures
assets and financial transactions is critical. The Prevention of Corruption Act enables law
enforcement to investigate governmental officials on allegations of corruption

4. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

Information relating to finances of companies is critical to the Act. By enforcing

transparency and disclosure of information the Act ensures that companies are fairly
portrayed to the public, and are unable to manipulate markets. In turn dilutes the privacy of
companies,

Criticisms

The Act has been criticized on several grounds. It provides for information on demand, so to
speak, but does not sufficiently stress information on matters related to food, water,
environment and other survival needs that must be given pro-actively, or suo moto, by public
authorities. The Act does not emphasize active intervention in educating people about their
right to access information -- vital in a country with high levels of illiteracy and poverty -- or
the promotion of a culture of openness within official structures. Without widespread
education and awareness about the possibilities under the new Act, it could just remain on
paper. The Act also reinforces the controlling role of the government official, who retains
wide discretionary powers to withhold information.
The most scathing indictment of the Bill has come from critics who focus on the sweeping
exemptions it permits. Restrictions on information relating to security, foreign policy,
defence, law enforcement and public safety are standard. But the Right to Information Act
also excludes Cabinet papers, including records of the council of ministers, secretaries and
other officials; this effectively shields the whole process of decision-making from mandatory
disclosure.
Another stringent criticism of the Act is the recent amendment that was to be made allowing
for file noting except those related to social and development projects to be exempted from
the purview of the Act. File noting is very important when it comes to the policy making of
the government. It is these notes that hold the rationale behind actions or the change in
certain policy, why a certain contract is given or why a sanction was withheld to prosecute a
corrupt official. Therefore the government’s intention to exempt the file noting from the
purview of the Act has come in for stringent criticisms.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY

The quest of privacy is an inherent instant of all human beings. As a matter of fact it is a
natural need of an individual to establish individual boundaries with almost perfect seclusion.
The concept of privacy in its broad sweep covers a number of prospects like non-disclosure
of information, sexual affairs, business secrets and no observance by others. It may be said
that the privacy is antithesis of being public, if any private letters to one's fiend are published
by anyone without his express or implied permission then his privacy would come to be
violated. Similarly if one's neighbor peeps into in his house from outside then it would also
constitute violation of his right to privacy. Thus privacy is a state of isolation and separation
from others. Privacy in general means the right to be let alone.
This Expression was used by Justice Cooley in 1888. This abbreviated meaning of privacy
was followed by Samuel Warren and Loues Brandeis in 1890 in one of their articles.' They
were of view that object of privacy is to protect 'inviolate personality'. They elaborated the
proposition and said that in early times the law gave remedy only for interference with life
and property, for trespasses viet armis. Then the right to life served only to protect life from
battery in its various forms; later there came recognition of spiritual nature and his feelings
and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights came to mean the right to enjoy life
and the right to be let alone.
Once an American Court observed that privacy is the right to live one's life in seclusion
without being subjected to unwarranted and undesired publicity.12 Similarly, the common law
jurists have described the idea of privacy as an idea of being private or secluded. Prof. Nizer
states that the right to privacy is the individual's rights to a secluded and anonymous
existence.13 Dr. Winfield opines that violation of privacy is the unauthorized interference with
another's seclusion of himself, his family or his property from the public gaze.14 A panel to
U.S. President's Office of Science and Technology in 1967 defined privacy as the right of the
individual to decide for himself how much, he will share with others his thoughts, his feelings
and the parts of his personal life. L.Luskey in his article "Invasion of Privacy: A
Classification of Concepts" has described privacy as an interest which someone has, that is to
say a person would be better off for being a private state.15

American Law so far could not give any explicit position to the right to privacy in any of its
statute as Justice Blackman in Roe v. Wad16 observed that the US constitution did not
explicitly mention any right of privacy. However, Judiciary recognized this right of personal
privacy and declared that such a right already exists in the Constitution Stanley v. Georgia17,
Griswold v. Connecticut18, Meyer v. Nebraska19 are some of the cases decided by the US
Courts in which they found the traces of right to privacy, in different constitutional

12
Karby v. Hal Roach Studies, 1942 53 Cali. App. 207, 127
13
Michigan Law Review, 1939, P. 526.
14
Seventh Edn 1963 at page 726
15
(1972) 78 Cal. Law Rev. 698
16
410 U.S. 113 (1973)
17
394 U.S. 557 (1969)
18
381 U.S. 479 (1965
19
262 U.S. 390 (1923
amendments as well as in the form of touching from a distance of the Bill of Rights. It is
submitted that privacy is such an essential component of human dignity without which
human dignity cannot be maintained and enjoyed.20

CONCEPT OF PRIVACY IN INDIA

The Indian Constitution did not guarantee the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right earlier.
In our country the sole-credit goes to the judiciary for recognizing the concept of privacy
because neither the Constitution nor any other statute in our country defined this concept. As
a matter of fact this concept is quiet in primitive stage of its development. But its
development is bound to have tremendous effect on the individual's living, However if we go
through various statutes of our country to understand the position of the concept of privacy,
then we would find several provisions which have been enacted for protecting privacy. Ss 28,
29, 164(3) and 165of Cr. P.C., 1973, S 509 of IPC 1860 and S. 18 of Easements Act,1882
may be taken as example. Not only this, ancient law in Dharam Shashtraas also recognized
the concept of privacy. Really the law of privacy has been well expounded in the
commentaries of old Law.
Kautilya in his Arthashashtra has prescribed a detailed procedure to ensure right to privacy
while ministers were consulted. But neither in ancient law nor in the present law has the term
‘privacy’ anywhere been defined.
It is the matter of pleasure that the emerging trend of the new constitutionalism by our
judiciary justifies the need of a law trenching on one's privacy-his dignity. Besides, Art. 12 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Art. 17 of the International covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, 1966and Art. 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights have
recognized and provided for the protection of this right to privacy. Further the Nordic
conference of Jurists and Legal Experts also emphasized that the right to privacy is
paramount to the human happiness.

20
Shriniwas Gupta, 'Right to Privacy is an Aspect of Human Dignity',LAWYER
(Madras) Vol. 17 (1986) pp 67-73
JUDICIAL PRONUNCEMENTS

Allahabad high Court in Nihal chand v. Bhawan Deit took first step when it recognized an
independent existence of the right to privacy as emerging from the customs and traditions of
the people besides being a statutory right. It observed :'the right to privacy based on social
custom is different from a right to privacy based on natural modesty and human morality, the
latter is not confined to any class, creed, colour or race and it is a birth right of any human
being and is sacred and should be observed. The right should not be exercised in an
oppressive way'.
Then M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandrawas21 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.
In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.22 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. 21 of our constitution is similar to that of
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the US Constitution. Further the court relied on
Wolf v. Colorado23 held that the common law rule that event man's house was his castle,
expounded a concept of personal liberty which did not rest upon a theory that had ceased to
exist and that the domiciliary visit was repugnant to personal liberty and hence
unconstitutional.
In Pooran Mal v. Director of Instruction’24 apex the court restricted the right to privacy to
search and seizure.
In fact in a landmark judgment in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of
India25 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.”

21
1954 AIR 300
22
AIR 1963 SC 1295
23
338 U.S. 25 (1949)
24
[1974] 1 S.C.C. 345
25
(2004) 1 SCC 712
In R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N26.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.
In State of Maharashtra v. Madhulkar Narain27 it has been held that the'right to privacy' is
available even to a woman of easy virtue and no one can invade her privacy. A police
Inspector visited the house of one Banubai in uniform and demanded to have sexual
intercourse with her.
On refusing he tried to have her by force. She raised a hue and cry. When he was prosecuted
he told the court that she was a lady of easy virtue and therefore her evidence was not to be
relied. The court rejected the argument of the applicant and held him liable for violating her
right to privacy under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
There are many aspects of privacy found in the Indian socio-legal system but the right to
privacy in the light of conjugal rights requires special attention. The question of relation
between the right to privacy and conjugal right arose for the first time in T.Sareetha v.
T.Venkata Subbaiah28 ' Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that sexual the cohabitation is
an inseparable ingredient of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
In case of Mr. ‘X’ Vs. Hospital ‘Z’29 person was found to be a HIV positive and the
information was disseminated by the doctor to his prospective wife. The person preferred a
suit against the doctor for breach of right to privacy and damages as well. Doctor patient
relationship though basically commercially is professionally a matter of confidence and
therefore, doctors are normally and ethically bound to maintain confidentiality. In such a
situation public disclosure of even true private facts may amount to an invasion of the "right
to privacy" which may sometimes lead to clash of one person's "right to be let alone" with
another person's "right to be informed".
In Ram Jethmalani and Ors.V. Union of India30 Supreme Court held:

26
(1994) 6 SCC 632
27
AIR 1991 SC 207
28
AIR 1983 AP 356
29
2003 (1) SCC 500
30
“Right to privacy is an integral part of right to life, a cherished constitutional value and it is
important that human beings be allowed domains of freedom that are free of public scrutiny
unless they act in an unlawful manner.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT

The right to privacy is an essential component of right to life envisaged by Art. 21. The right
however is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder,
or protection of health or moral; or protection of rights and freedom of others. With the
growth of terrorism and related activities each country is trying to do its best curbing this
trend.
Today, there are cases where in organisations; all the e-mails of the employees are monitored.
It is an absolute abuse of the right to privacy. Further to recently all the cell phone companies
activated the tracking system wherein wherever the cell phone user goes his mobile phone
shows the name of the area. This makes one feel as if he is being tracked or shadowed. It is a
fit case of unreasonable restriction on the freedom of movement. The Indian government is
currently considering the idea of enacting a detailed law on data protection under the
initiative of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. A detailed
enactment in respect of the right to privacy is the need of the hour. Otherwise every Indian
citizen will be like a prisoner in his own backyard. In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh31
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 code further observed
that" if there is a conflict between fundamental rights of two parties that right which advances
public morality would prevail.
The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case by
case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to
move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an
independent right of privacy, it is an emanation from them which one can characterise as a
fundamental right but the right is not absolute.
Furthermore in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India32 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. In the instant case P.

31
(1975) 2 SCC 14
32
AIR 2003 SC 2363
Venkatarama Reddy J. observed: "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".
Concluding, The norms of privacy should be determined and measured to a common standard
because a right without description is a right without protection.. It may be hoped that when
an appropriate case comes before the Apex court, it would make an overall review arid
reconsider the existing position regarding the right to privacy.

Right 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 the 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,"33
RTI is focused on ensuring the accountability of powerful institutions to individuals in the
information age. It provides rights to individual’s tools to obtain Information about
themselves that is held by government bodies. RTI laws are the only means to access
personal records but are not applicable to the private sector.
In 1998, using Article 8, of the European Convention on Human Rights, as a basis, the
European Court of Human Rights ruled that in cases where a lack of information could
endanger their health, individuals may demand information from government bodies.

In many countries, like United States and United Kingdom, RTI laws are a primary tool used
by privacy advocates to identify abuses and to campaign effectively against them.

AREA OF CONFLICT

Third party information‐ A public authority should not straightway reject a written request
for information simply on the ground that it relates to a third party. The public authority if
satisfied may obtain consent from the third party for disclosure.
“Right to life” includes right to lead a healthy life as to enjoy all the faculties of the human
body in their prime condition, and the disclosure that the prospective spouse is a HIV(+) can
in no way be said to violate the rule of confidentiality or the right to privacy.

Clash of two Fundamental rights, namely right to privacy and the right to live a healthy life
‐the right which would advance the public interest would alone be enforced.

Elected officials—there is also significant agreement that information about elected or high‐
ranking public officials is less restricted, even when it relates to their personal lives.
The European Court of Human Rights (2004) said, “the public has a right to be informed i.e.,
certain circumstances can even extend to aspects of the private life of public figures,
particularly where politicians are concerned.” In Hungary, the Constitutional Court ruled in
1994 that there are “narrower limits to the Constitutional protection of privacy for
government officials and politicians appear in public than to that of the ordinary citizen” In
India, the Supreme Court ruled that the criminal records of persons running for Parliament
should be made public. A recent case ruled that medical information could be released if
33
Times of India , dated Oct 12 , 2012, “RTI should be circumscribed if it encroaches on privacy”
there was a sufficient public interest, however, ordinarily “personal information including tax
returns, medical records etc. cannot be disclosed in view of Section8(1)(j) of the Act .In
India, a review of the data of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme found that
millions of rupees were being siphoned off because fake identity cards in the names of
children and public employees were created and used .In most developed countries, like in
the U.S, there is sensitivity about individuals receiving social support, so personal
information held by government bodies is not generally made public. Public Registers- An
increasing controversy relates to access to information in public registers, such as birth,
marriage, and death registers; electoral registers; land records; lists of license holders &
similar records.
Misuse of the Privacy Exemption- Not all arguments for privacy made by officials is
legitimate. Former U.K. Cabinet Secretary Sir Richard Wilson said “I believe that a certain
amount of privacy is essential to good government”. Both the RTI and privacy are
internationally recognized human rights with long histories and important functions. The
rights must be decided on a case‐by case basis with a view toward the relative importance of
various interests. The important issue is how the legislation and the implementing and
oversight bodies balance the two rights.

CONCLUSION

Both the rights are intended to help the individual in making government accountable and
transparent. Most issues can be mitigated through the enactment of clear definitions in
legislation, guidelines, techniques, and oversight systems. Due diligence would ensure that
the access to information and data protection laws have compatible definitions of personal
information. Appropriate institutional structures and public interest tests should be created to
balance these rights and ensure that data protection and right to information work together in
harmony.The public authorities should deal with the applicants in a friendly manner and
public interest should be the core &the disclosures should be made accordingly.
the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Sub-clause (i)