Personal information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 : a discussion

Personal information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 : a discussion

The most common feature of democracy is the transparency of government. Democracy is for the people, to the people and by the people. In a democracy, people are responsible for the government and they indirectly affect the administration and structure of the country through its indirectly elected representatives. Our participatory regime gives us the right to play a key role in governance to the government. Democracy ensures the proper effective functioning and transparency of public authorities. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was established with the same purpose. In this article, we will discuss the disclosure of the personal information clause which is given in the act and general exceptions related to it, if any.

This article is written by Seep Gupta, from the Institute of Law, Jiwaji University. This is an exhaustive article which deals with personal information under the Right to Information Act, 2005: a discussion.

A brief overview of the Right to Information Act

The Right to Information Act, 2005 which is also known as RTI Act, 2005 is the sign of a historical movement and symbolisation of democracy in its truest sense. It was enacted and implemented by the parliament nearly 16 years ago. It received the assent of the President on 15 June 2005 and became fully operational on October 12, 2005. It was established with the motive to ensure transparency and effectiveness in the functioning of public officials. Even after 16 years of its enactment common masses still lack general awareness regarding this act. Most of the laymen are not aware of their rights and do not hold any sort of knowledge regarding this act. Basically in a common man’s language, one can say that this act was enacted with the motive to seek answers and to raise inquiries and to access control of the information which is held by any public authority. The act comprises six chapters. This act was implemented by the Department of Personnel and Training which is also known as (DoPT) in short.

Some important sections under the Act

Section 2(a) – This Section describes appropriate government. An appropriate government and can be anyone. It can be the central government for the centre and union territories and state government for the state.

Section 2(f) – “Information” means any information in any form including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases, reports, papers, samples, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts or any material held in electronic form or relating to any private body which can be accessed by any public authority under any law for the time being in force.

Section 2(j) – This Section is a significant section of the Act as it explains the “RIght to Information”. It is a very right to access any information which is held under any public authority and it includes:

1.Inspection of works and documents.

2.Taking notes or certified copies of any document.

3. Taking a certified sample of the material.

4. Obtaining print out in compact disk, floppies, cassettes, tapes or any mode whether electronic or print out where such information is stored in a computer or any other device.

Section 4 of the Right to Information Act describes suo motu disclosure of information. It means every public authority has the right to disclose important information on its own.

Section 8(1) mentions exemptions that cannot be disclosed under the ambit of this Act.

Section 8(2) provides for the disclosure of private information which is exempted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 if a larger public interest is served.

Information Commissioners at both the central and state level are provided under this Act. They are responsible for giving information to the person who is seeking it under this Act.

The period under this Act to provide information is given 30 days from the date of receipt of the application by public authority. In cases involving the life and liberty of a person, it is 48 hours.

Meaning of personal information under this Act

Personal Information is not defined anywhere under the Right to Information Act. However, personal information is defined in Section 2(i) of Information Technology Rules, 2011. It defines the term personal information as,

Any information related to a natural person directly or indirectly related in combination with other information available with a body corporate is capable of identifying such a person.

It can include anything such as audios, voice recordings, images, alpha-numerical identifiers and a combination of these. For information to be personal information two criteria must be satisfied:

a.It must be about a specific individual.

b. That individual can be identified from that particular information.

For any information to be categorised as personal information, it does not need to be recorded or in audio form. It can be spoken, communicated or even in sign language.

When the information is not clear, then it is necessary to know about the context in which the information appears or the circumstances that surround it. All the facts and circumstances surrounding any information must be recognised to grasp whether any particular information reveals anything related to any particular individual or not. There is some information which is personal by obvious nature such as medical files and bank records, any information including personal whereabouts and details such as name, address and photograph, email address, financial records etc. Thus any information which is capable of identifying a natural person comes under the ambit of personal information. The courts in India have interpreted the scope of personal information under the Right to Information Act.

Disclosure of personal information a violation of fundamental rights

Right to Information is a well defined fundamental right that is given under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution which is a well-settled proposition. Over the years the Supreme Court of India has ruled in the favour of this right. Every citizen has the right to know the working of any public authority with full efficiency and transparency. However, as with every fundamental right, this right comes up with relevant restrictions.

The development of the right to information in the constitutional law started with petitions of the press to the Supreme Court to enforce and invoke the right of freedom and speech by challenging the governmental orders for control of print media such as control of newsprint, ban and distribution of papers etc.

After the landmark judgment of Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, (1972), the right to information was held to be included under the wide ambit of right to freedom and expression which is given in Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981), the court held that the rights of the public act to seek information regarding the functioning of many public and administrative authorities are described.

In the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) public scrutiny is necessary to ensure transparency. In the case of State of UP v. Raj Narain, (1975), the Court held that in a democratic country like India every citizen has a right to know every particular public authority. The people have the right to know even the minute action or work done by public functionaries. This right to information which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech is not absolute. There is certain information that is meant to be kept secret and does not serve the larger public interest. Such secret information comes under the garb of the right to privacy which was recently added as a fundamental right in Article 21. The concept of privacy in broadway covers so many aspects such as non-disclosure of personal information, secret information, business and sexual affairs. Right to privacy means the right to be left alone.

In India, the right to privacy is not defined in that constitution and still in the primitive stage of development. The right to privacy has been well explained in the concept of old law commentaries. In a landmark judgement of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1996), the Supreme Court held that the “Right to Life and Personal Liberty” includes the right to privacy too and it includes telephonic conversation at home or in office and thus tapping of telephonic conversation is a violation of the right to privacy. The Right to Information Act is not absolute. It is barred by certain restrictions. No information commissioner can reveal any private information related to any particular person. Revealing private information is an outright violation of fundamental rights.

The exception to the general rule

It has been held in a strict sense by the court that public needs and public interest have to be kept in mind in striking a balance between the right to privacy and the right to information. The decision has to be based on overall satisfaction and on the fact that sometimes larger public interest supersedes or outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy. What comes under larger public interest is the work of judicial experts that requires a high degree of constitutional interpretation. It’s the responsibility of CPIO (Central Public Information Officer) to apply the proportionality test laid out in K.S. Puttaswamy (2018) judgement.

In the case of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) the Supreme Court held that in some exceptional circumstances private information can be disclosed if it serves the larger public interest. It was decided that the ‘public interest’ has to be interpreted in the strictest sense.

In another case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors, (2012). It is given that if the central public information officer or state public information officer of the appellate authority is satisfied that the disclosure of certain information will justify or serve larger public interests then appropriate orders can be given for disclosing that information. But the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Others, (2006) Supreme Court 212, the Apex Court held that public interest holds and possess wide importance and it’s an umbrella term which comprises public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the principles of Directive Principles of State Policy which are mentioned in Part IV of Indian Constitution. Generally, public interest includes, “disclosure of certain information which leads to greater transparency and prosperity of the nation ”. Withholding that information can affect the interests of the public at large.

Recent developments

Recently the government introduced the Right to Information Bill, 2019 which seeks to amend significant sections of the former Right to Information Act, 2005. This bill proposes to empower the government to set the salaries and time tenure of both central and state public information commissioners. The bill seeks to amend Section 13 and Section 16 of the Act which mentions the salaries and tenure of central and state information commissioners. In the 2005 Act, it is stated that at the time of appointment of information commissioners at both central and state level if they are receiving any sort of pension or any other sort of retirement benefit from their previous government job, their salary will be reduced by an amount equal to their pension. Previous government services include central, state or any corporation owned by the central or state government. The 2019 Bill of Right to Information seeks to remove these provisions.

The opposition is against this amendment because according to them, this bill is harming the independence of RTI officers and is trying to hamper the independent working of the RTI officers.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, it can be summarised that the right to information Act is one of the landmark Acts to cement the foundation of a corruption-less and transparent society. This Act serves as a gruelling nightmare for corrupt public officers and authorities. It was enacted to maximise efficiency and to minimise the malpractices that are prevalent in the public sector and among public officers. Needless to say, the right to information is a very important right that is enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution but as with other rights, it is not unrestricted. Private information about a specific topic cannot be disclosed under this act. If it affects a large number of masses then private information can be revealed under certain circumstances and this is the only exemption given under this Act. Source:ipleaders