Balancing Transparency and Privacy: Case Analysis OF Delhi High Court Order on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

In a very recent decision of Kamal Bhasin v. Central Public Information Office and Anr by the Delhi High Court, the court revolved around the scope and limitation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “RTI Act”), specifically in relation to the scope and extent of the personal information that can be disclosed. The RTI Act, which aims to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, has its own boundaries and limitations when it concerns any individual's personal information. 

The appellant, herein, had sought information from the Public Information Officer of the Power Finance Corporation Limited concerning the executives, such as their recruitment, qualifications, and the University from which they had obtained their degrees. The appellant had sought the information on the pretext that the Corporation had observed an abnormal increase in its manpower in the last five years. The Delhi High Court, dismissing the writ petition, highlighted the necessity to keep a strict balance between transparency, as guaranteed by the act, and the right to privacy, a recognized fundamental right. If said in a nutshell, this decision calls attention to the complex nature involved in interpreting the RTI Act.\

ISSUES

1. Whether there was a larger public interest in the information sought by the appellant?
2. Whether disclosure of personal information, specifically the employees institute or university name, amount to a larger public interest?

ANALYSIS

The Delhi High Court, in deciding this matter, had to interpret and make a thorough application of sections 7(9) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant herein had sought detailed information on these headers:

1. “Certified Copy of the Recruitment Policy on the executives
2. Certified Copy of the Manpower Requirement Budget for executives
3. A total number of executives at the induction level have been recruited during the last 5 years (i.e. from the year 2010 to 2015) detailing their Name, Qualifications, Name of the Passing Institute/university, and their present posting in the Corporation.”

The Central Public Information Officer had provided information the appellants were seeking in points (i) and (ii); however, concerning point (iii), only certain information was shared and did not essentially provide the complete information the appellants were seeking by stating that the information sought is exempted under section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The dissatisfied appellant filed an appeal, which was dismissed at a very nascent stage by the appellate authority. Furthermore, a second appeal was filed before the Chief Information Commissioner (“CIC”), which was disposed of, ruling that the information that the appellant sought did not serve any public interest and is therefore exempted from being disclosed under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 

The CPIO, as stated, rejected the request made by the appellant under section 7(9) of the Act. Section 7(9) states, "Information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.” The CPIO, relying on section 7(9), argued that retrieving information related to educational qualifications, names of the institute, etc, would require significant effort and time and would divert the authority's resources and hence is exempted from being disclosed. However, the CIC had another view on the said matter. The CIC rejected disclosing the information, relying on section 8(1)(j) of the RTI act, which allows not disclosing personal information unless it is for a larger public interest.

The appellant, subsequent to the rejection by the CIC to furnish the information, approached the Delhi High Court under a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge, constraining the appellant from filing this petition. The appellant mainly contended that the rejection to furnish the information is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions and the objectives of the RTI Act. He asserted that only part of the information concerning point (iii) was furnished. The appellant emphasized that the reasons accompanying the rejection of the disclosure of information were inconsistent and arbitrary. The appellant also urged that the information sought by the appellant was initially rejected by the CPIO, relying on Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, and had no relation as to whether the information sought was for a larger public interest or not. However, the CIC rejected this based on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, stating that the information sought was personal information and would invade the individuals' right to privacy if furnished.

The Delhi High Court, in this case, has thoroughly examined the concept of larger public interest. The appellant’s main contention was that since the Supreme Court had de-recognised forty-four universities through a recent decision, the disclosure of information concerning the Universities the executives had passed out from is a matter of larger public importance. The Delhi High Court, while rejecting this contention, held that the information sought by the appellant in point (iii) was not for any larger public interest and that the disclosure of such information would affect the privacy of the employees. The appellant was furnished with information related to the employees' names and qualifications; however, the universities from which they had graduated were not furnished. The Delhi High Court also pointed out that the appellant had failed to provide any direct and significant public interest in obtaining the sought information. This Court, while referring to a decision by the Delhi High Court in Ravi Prakash Soni v. Central Public Information Commission and Ors held that public interest must be something substantial and affect the society at large. The Delhi High Court held that, “The words “larger public interest” would, in our view, have an impact on a broad section of the society and not individual interests or conflicts. It cannot be defined in a straight jacket formula and has to be interpreted on a case-to-case basis.”

Moreover, the court also scrutinized the appellant's motive, highlighting that the appellant had filed multiple RTI applications merely on the pretext that the appellant’s brother was dismissed from the same corporation. The court, while addressing the divergent opinions in the dismissal of the application, held that the decision by the second appellate authority, i.e., CIC, was just in law and the information sought was, in fact, personal information and was therefore exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j). 

CONCLUSION

The case of Kamal Bhasin v. Central Public Information Office highlights a very delicate balance between transparency and privacy under the RTI Act. The Delhi High Court’s decision reinforces that despite transparency being a cornerstone for ensuring accountability, it cannot come at the expense of an individual's privacy, specifically when there is no matter of larger public importance. Furthermore, the Delhi High Court also emphasised the need for a more consistent and reasoned approach to the interpretation of the RTI Act, specifically in applying the exemptions under the act.