Right to information vs right to privacy : Author: Fardeen Khan
Right to privacy and right to information in India are the two important rights to secure the dignity of a person and to lead a respectable and responsible life. Both the rights are essential aspects to assure the quality life of an individual. Whereas the former deals with privacy with respect to personal issues/affairs, the latter enables the citizens to know the activities performed by various departments in the government related to public interests. In most of the cases both the rights are relevant and co-exist to establish accountability of the government functionaries and public servants to the people. However, in certain scenarios there is a dilemma between the two rights which are concerned with accessing personal information by various government departments.
ARTICLE
Striking the Right Balance
Introduction
Right to privacy and right to information in India are the two important rights to secure the dignity of a person and to lead a respectable and responsible life. Both the rights are essential aspects to assure the quality life of an individual. Whereas the former deals with privacy with respect
to personal issues/affairs, the latter enables the citizens to know the activities performed
by various departments in the government related to public interests. In most of the cases both the rights are relevant and co-exist to establish accountability of the government functionaries and public servants to the people. However, in certain scenarios there is a dilemma between the
two rights which are concerned with accessing personal information by various government departments.
The controversy between the two rights, right to privacy and right to information is currently one
of the most important topics of discussion across the globe as each nation is contemplating to devise varied policies and principles concerning these two laws.
In India, in August 2017, the Supreme Court in a historic verdict acknowledged the right to privacy as one of the basic rights conferred by the Constitution to the Indian citizens. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the right to privacy is an intrinsic ingredient of the right to life and personal
liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the right to
information emanates from the right to freedom of expression as provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. A bill containing various provisions relating to the said right was passed in 2005 and came to be known as the Right to Information Act, 2005.
What is known as the Right to Privacy?
The concept of the Right to Privacy connotes that every individual has a right to keep himself, his personal life, personal information, family or close relationships, communication, and other
private aspects of his personal life free from the unwanted intrusion of others, whether individuals or the State. It further means that every individual is entitled to have the freedom to deal with his private aspects of life without external interference.
Constitutionally, the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right in India, which was judicially declared and recognized as a part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty enshrined in Article
21 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017.
In a nutshell, the Right to Privacy provides that every individual must be entitled to keep his personal life private and free from the interference of others.
Concept of Data Protection
The concept of data protection is generally understood as a set of rules and techniques aimed at protecting personal data from various kinds of unauthorized use and interference. With the
increasing number of digital interactions and the exchange of information between people, the issue of securing data has become a priority. A living person has a lot of different data that must be
protected: ages, addresses, biometric data, financial data, photos, videos, emails,
and passwords. The topic of data protection is directly related to the right to privacy since personal information that is protected by law belongs to each person.
The main principle of data protection is that any information that relates to a
person and contains personal data must be handled responsibly. It is necessary to collect, store,
and process such data only with specific and justified reasons. The collected data must be protected; that is, it must not be available to unauthorized people. At the same time, a person must have the opportunity to control data that refers to them.
Data protection is closely related to the right to privacy since personal information that is protected by law belongs to each person.
The violation of personal data protection leads to the infringement of privacy and a
person’s dignity. To avoid the abuse of personal data, it is necessary to ensure data protection, which would ensure a high level of security and privacy of data, both on the Internet and without using technological tools.
Right to Information interpretation
As per the constitutional law, the term Right to Information basically means the citizen's right to acquire the information regarding the functioning of the government and its various departments. The said act aims to give the people of the nation a right to know about the inner workings of the government, the allocation of public funds, and details on why and how government decisions are made.
More specifically, in India, the Parliament of India passed the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was mainly focused on enhancing transparency and accountability in all government
organizations. As per the provisions of the given Act, every citizen of India has a fair and reasonable right to seek and receive information in order to know more about the government's activities. In addition to that, they said Act empowers citizens to obtain all details regarding the government's documents, records, and reports that are not covered by any exemptions.
According to the Indian Constitution, the Right to Information contributes to the overall
empowerment of the people as it is explicitly related to the Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression, which is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). Basically, the freedom of expression presupposes a citizen's right to obtain information on any matter of national interest. For that reason, it can be concluded that the Right to Information provides the citizens of India with the right to access the government's information on any issue they deem necessary for the country's well-being.
Conflicts between the Right to Privacy and the Right to Information Coursework
The Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy are both fundamental rights in a democratic society. While the RTI promotes transparency and accountability, the Right to Privacy shields citizens from unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives. The potential
for conflict between the two rights arises when a citizen seeks information from a public authority that may contain personal data pertaining to another citizen.
The crux of the conflict is whether the information sought should be disclosed to
promote transparency or withheld to protect the privacy of the individual. Indian courts have consistently addressed the issue and have generated several important precedents.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2012)
This Supreme Court judgment is one of the leading cases dealing with the RTI and the Right to
Privacy. In this case, the petitioner sought information pertaining to the service record, disciplinary proceedings, property, investments and other financial details of another employee. The Supreme Court ruled that such information fell under the category of “personal information” as defined
by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and could, therefore, be withheld from disclosure. However, the Court also observed that such information could be disclosed if it was found to be in the larger public interest.
This judgment essentially lays down the principle that personal information cannot be sought as a matter of right simply on the grounds of the RTI without any consideration for the public
interest. It is an important precedent for distinguishing between personal information and information of public interest.
Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2017)
In this case, details pertaining to the service and employment of the employees of Canara Bank were sought through the RTI. Following the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the information sought related to personal information of the
employees. Furthermore, since the information sought did not pertain to the larger public interest, the RTI request was denied altogether.
The ruling highlights the fact that government jobs do not render every piece of information
pertaining to the government employees as public information. As in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, personal information continues to enjoy the same level of protection even if it pertains to government employees unless it is shown to be in the larger public interest.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
The Puttaswamy judgment is a landmark ruling concerning the Right to Privacy. The nine-judge bench ruling declared that the Right to Privacy is indeed a Fundamental Right that is intrinsic to the Right to Life and Personal Liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling also declared that
the Right to Privacy is an integral component of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in Part III of
the Constitution. The Puttaswamy ruling is significant to the discussion concerning the RTI, the Right to Privacy and the conflict between the two in determining the scope of disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. By declaring the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right, the ruling has
effectively strengthened the legal standing of the privacy as a justiciable fundamental
freedom. Nevertheless, as stated by the Supreme Court, the Right to Privacy is not absolute
and its restrictions are permissible if they meet the requirements of legality, legitimate State aims, and proportionality. In essence, the Puttaswamy ruling provides a strong but nuanced foundation for determining the limits of disclosure under the RTI Act without violating the Right to Privacy.
Balancing the Two Rights
An examination of the three judgments reveals that the conflict between the RTI and the Right to Privacy cannot be resolved on absolute terms. Given the overriding importance of the RTI in promoting transparency and accountability, information that pertains to matters of public interest and exposes corruption or malfeasance in public offices must be disclosed even if it intrudes upon
the Right to Privacy. However, at the same time, the basic tenets of the Right to Privacy must also be respected and personal information that does not pertain to matters of public interest must not be disclosed. Therefore, when evaluating RTI requests for disclosure of personal information, public authorities should carefully weigh the competing interests of the RTI applicant and the individual whose personal information is being sought.
Conclusion
It is undisputable that the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy are both a part of the coin. The coin represents and signifies the democratic society. Both these rights are important as one questions the state to bring transparency and the other ensures that there is a certain level of
privacy maintained in the personal matters of the citizen. The conflict between the
two rights occurs when the question of information reaches up to the private domain of an individual. It is in the best interests of the state to maintain a balance between the two as the
transparency must not reach up to the extent which exposes the personal matters of any individual.
The cases dealt by the Supreme Court highlight the significance attributed to the balancing test. In cases such as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam and K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court reiterated the need for balancing the Right to Information and Right to Privacy. The court while interpreting the statutes held that there is a basic constitutional right for the citizens to access the information pertained with the functioning of the state.
Simultaneously, the citizens have a right to withhold their personal information from being accessed by the state.
A transparent and informed government along with the protected individual is what any democratic state must strive for. A balance must be maintained between the two as the transparency can never be an end in itself and neither can the privacy be the reason to avoid accountability.