PM CARES Fund's Privacy Rights Upheld by Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday affirmed that the PM CARES Fund maintains its right to privacy under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, even if it is managed or controlled by the government. A Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, made these remarks while hearing an appeal related to the disclosure of information submitted by the fund for income tax exemption.

Court Differentiates RTI Privacy from Constitutional Privacy

The court clarified that its ruling pertains to the privacy rights available to third parties under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which allows for withholding personal information. This is distinct from the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench emphasized that a juristic personality, even if a public authority, does not automatically forfeit its right to privacy conferred by the Act.

"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 remarked. Chief Justice Upadhyaya explained that the RTI Act prohibits the disclosure of third-party information without proper safeguards, asserting that the privacy rights of a public trust are indistinguishable from those of a private individual or entity under the statute.

Background of the Appeal

The case originated from an application seeking disclosure of documents submitted by the PM CARES Fund for its exemption under the Income Tax Act. The Central Information Commission had initially directed the Income Tax Department to provide the information. However, a single judge of the High Court later set aside this directive in January 2024, ruling that the CIC lacked jurisdiction to compel information disclosure under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, which was deemed to prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act.

Arguments and Next Steps

RTI applicant Girish Mittal appealed this single-judge decision to the Division Bench. His counsel argued that the PM CARES Fund, as a government-established public charitable trust, should not possess privacy rights under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The applicant's representative contended that while individual privacy is protected, entities like PM CARES Fund should not be afforded such protections and that the RTI Act's provisions override any exemptions under the Income Tax Act.

The court has listed the matter for further hearing on February 10, when the Income Tax Department will present its submissions.