The oral remark was made by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, who said that even if the Fund is a State, it does not lose its right to privacy just because it is a public entity.
The court's reasoning is based on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which prohibits the disclosure of personal information. The bench clarified that this right to privacy is not related to Article 21 of the Constitution, but rather a right available to third parties.
“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 court said, reported Bar and Bench.
According to Chief Justice Upadhyaya, the RTI Act prohibits the provision of information on third parties, and the Act makes no difference between the privacy rights of a public or private trust.
“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 noted.
The case involves an appeal by Girish Mittal, who sought disclosure of information and documents submitted by the PM CARES Fund for tax exemption. The Central Information Commission had initially directed the Income Tax Department to disclose the information, but a single judge later set aside this directive.
The RTI applicant then moved the Division Bench against the single-judge directive. According to the advocate Pranav Sachdeva, who appeared for Mittal, “Privacy of individuals is to be protected. But this sort of entity [PM Cares Fund] will not have any privacy."
The court scheduled a hearing for February 10 in this matter, when Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman will make the submissions on behalf of the Income Tax Department.
