In a significant observation concerning the intersection of transparency and the right to privacy, the Delhi High Court has remarked that even if an entity like the PM CARES Fund is considered "State" or a "Public Authority," it does not automatically lose its right to privacy.

The court emphasized that the mere status of being a juristic or government entity does not strip an organization of the legal protections afforded under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, particularly regarding sensitive third-party information.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia made these observations while hearing an appeal against a 2024 single-judge bench decision. The earlier decision had quashed an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC), which had directed the Income Tax authorities to disclose details related to the PM CARES Fund’s tax exemptions.

The case revolves around a long-standing debate: is the PM CARES Fund (Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund) a public authority, and to what extent must its internal financial approvals be made public?

The Division Bench today noted, "Merely because it is State, does it lose its right to privacy?" This question highlights a crucial legal principle—that privacy is not just a right for individuals but can also extend to "juristic persons" (legal entities) when it comes to confidential filings and internal government notings.

The legal battle began when RTI applicant Girish Mittal sought specific documents from the Income Tax (IT) department. He requested:

Copies of all documents submitted by the PM CARES Fund in its application for tax exemption.
File notings of the IT department that granted these exemptions.
Similar information for other exemption applications filed between April 2019 and March 2020.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) initially rejected the request, arguing that the information was "personal" in nature, had no relationship to public activity, and would cause an "unwarranted invasion of privacy." This rejection was later upheld by the First Appellate Authority, which added that the PM CARES Fund did not fall under the purview of the RTI Act.

However, when the matter reached the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Commission took a middle-of-the-road approach. It refused to grant information about other third-party entities but directed the CPIO to provide the documents and file notings specifically related to the PM CARES Fund.

The Income Tax Department challenged the CIC’s order before a single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad. In 2024, Justice Prasad quashed the CIC's direction.

The single-judge bench highlighted several procedural and jurisdictional errors:

Violation of Section 11 of the RTI Act: This section is vital for "third-party" information. It mandates that if an applicant seeks information that relates to or was supplied by a third party (in this case, the PM CARES Fund), that third party must be given a notice and an opportunity to object before the information is released. The CIC had failed to ensure this procedure was followed.
Conflict with the Income Tax Act: The court noted that Section 138 of the Income Tax Act governs the disclosure of information related to assessees. Under this law, information can only be disclosed if the "satisfaction" of a high-ranking tax official (like the Commissioner) is met. The court ruled that the RTI Act cannot be used to bypass these specific protections in the IT Act.
Inconsistency in the CIC Order: The court found it "inconsistent" that the CIC refused information for other private exemption applications but allowed it for PM CARES, despite both being third-party entities in the eyes of the Income Tax department.

The Definition of Personal Information

A key takeaway from the ongoing proceedings is the interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This section exempts "personal information" from disclosure unless there is a larger public interest.

The Delhi High Court’s observations suggest that even for a fund headed by the Prime Minister, the details of its tax filings and the internal process of granting exemptions are protected by the same privacy standards as any other entity. The court’s logic is that a "public authority" is still a "person" in the eyes of the law (a juristic person), and it maintains a zone of confidentiality regarding its administrative and financial interactions with the tax regulator.

This case is being closely watched by legal experts and transparency activists for several reasons:

Status of PM CARES: While the government has maintained that the PM CARES Fund is a private trust and not a "Public Authority" under the RTI Act, the court is looking at the issue from a different angle: even if we assume it is a public authority, does that mean all its secrets must be public?
Procedural Integrity: The court is reinforcing that the CIC cannot skip steps. Section 11 (Third Party Notice) is not a mere formality; it is a mandatory safeguard.
Hierarchy of Laws: The judgment clarifies how the RTI Act (a general law for transparency) interacts with the Income Tax Act (a specific law with its own confidentiality clauses).

The Delhi High Court’s remarks today signal a protective stance toward the privacy of institutional data. By questioning if the "State" loses its privacy, the court is setting a precedent that transparency is not an absolute, "all-or-nothing" game.

The Division Bench will continue to hear the arguments to decide whether the single judge's decision to quash the CIC order was correct. For now, the PM CARES Fund remains shielded from the specific disclosures sought by the applicant, emphasizing that in the world of RTI, "public interest" must always be weighed against the "right to privacy," regardless of who the entity is.

Case Title: Girish Mittal vs. CPIO/Dy Commissioner of Income Tax HQ Exemption, New Delhi Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

For more updates on this case and other legal news, stay tuned to our website.