The Delhi High Court held that the PM CARES Fund does not lose its right to privacy under the RTI Act merely because it is managed or controlled by the government. The Court clarified that third-party privacy protections under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act apply equally to public and private entities.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday made it clear that even if the PM CARES Fund is managed, supervised or controlled by the government, it does not automatically lose its right to privacy under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
The Court clarified that this discussion is not about the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, but about the protection given to third parties under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which restricts disclosure of personal or private information.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Overturns CIC Order on PM CARES Fund Disclosure
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the nature of an entity being linked to the government does not take away its legal right to privacy under the RTI framework.
The Bench remarked,
“Even if it is State, merely because it is State, it does it lose its right to privacy… How can you say that? Merely because there is an entity discharging certain public functions, or if it is managed, supervised and controlled by the government, it is still a juristic personality. How can you deny such a right [right to privacy] conferred on it merely because it is a public authority,”
the High Court remarked.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya further explained that the RTI Act clearly protects information related to third parties and that the law does not distinguish between public and private trusts when it comes to privacy rights under Section 8(1)(j).
He emphasised that the protection applies uniformly, irrespective of the nature of the entity. Explaining this with examples, the Court said,
“Suppose there is a society or a trust running a school or a football club. Would that society have a right to privacy [under RTI Act] or not… Can you say that without notice to that trust, this information can be given to you? You can’t different between the third parties. It can be a private individual, trust, body, society or a cooperative society. It can be anything. Public or not, that would not differentiate, as far as third-party rights under the RTI Act is concerned,”
the Court stressed.
These observations were made while the Bench was hearing an appeal seeking disclosure of information and documents submitted by the PM CARES Fund to the Income Tax Department for claiming exemption under the Income Tax Act.
Earlier, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had allowed the RTI application and directed the Income Tax Department to disclose the information sought by the applicant.
However, this CIC direction was later set aside by a single judge of the Delhi High Court. In January 2024, the single-judge held that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to order disclosure of information that is specifically protected under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act.
The Court further ruled that Section 138(2) of the Income Tax Act would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act, which gives the RTI Act overriding effect.
Aggrieved by this decision, RTI applicant Girish Mittal approached the Division Bench challenging the single-judge order. During the hearing on Tuesday, advocate Pranav Sachdeva appeared on behalf of Mittal and argued that the PM CARES Fund does not fall within the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
He contended that a public charitable trust created by the government cannot claim a right to privacy under the RTI law. Making his submission, Sachdeva stated,
“Privacy of individuals is to be protected. But this sort of entity [PM Cares Fund] will not have any privacy,”
he said.
Sachdeva also argued that the protection available under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act should not apply to the PM CARES Fund. He further submitted that even if Section 138 were applicable, it would be overridden by Section 22 of the RTI Act, which gives the RTI law supremacy over other statutes.
After hearing the arguments from Sachdeva, the Division Bench adjourned the matter and listed it for further hearing on February 10. On the next date, Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman is expected to make submissions on behalf of the Income Tax Department.
Case Title:
Girish Mittal v CPIO Dy Commissioner of Income Tax
Click Here to Read More Reports On PM CARES Fund
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
