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: