Privacy in the age of sunshine laws (RTI, judiciary, transparency)

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

 Privacy in the age of sunshine laws (RTI, judiciary, transparency)

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• Constitution Bench hearing on RTI : An appeal in SC pertaining to the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005 had raised important questions about public disclosure of assets by judges under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
• Not needed : The provisions in Section 8(1)(j) prohibit any disclosure of personal information if it is not connected with any public activity, or is like an invasion of privacy. Larger public interest alone can justify that.
• A final decision will affect much : If the 5-judge bench asserts the fundamental right to privacy as the basis for not disclosing assets to public, then 

1. the PUCL (2003) landmark judgment gets overruled, and the Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) gets overruled – the Court had not recognised the privacy right of political classes regarding assets disclosure (and also income sources)
2. the Section 44 of Lokpal Act, 2013 too will be affected. This requires all public servants to disclose assets (including judges). The section does not specify disclosure to whom - public, or competent authority alone.

• 1997 commitment : In 2007, an RTI filed with PIO of SC asked if the SC judges had complied with the 1997 commitment where they were to disclose all assets and liabilities to the CJI.

1. That resolution had decided to keep the data confidential. But then came the RTI, 2005 that gave a legal right to demand information held by public authorities (including the CJI of SC).
2. What the PIO said : Despite the petitioner never asking for actual data but only whether judges filed it or not, the PIO of SC invoked Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act to deny the information.

• What Delhi HC said : This matter went to the Delhi HC that concluded that judges had a right to privacy.

1. Unless the RTI applicant showed how "larger public interest" is linked to the information demanded, the data could not be given.
2. So, "public servants cannot be forced to disclose their personal assets to the public only because they hold public posts".
3. In inividual cases of impropriety or wrongdoing, it can be disclosed.

• What will SC do : It will most likely follow the HC's logic, also due to its own 2012 decision in Girish R Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner.

1. The RTI applicant wanted the service record and assets of a serving bureaucrat
2. SC refused, citing the need to disclose larger public interest

• The 2017 Privacy Judgement : In a landmark 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court held privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 - Right to life and liberty. So, "informational privacy" too is covered.
• If not judges, then why politicians : If the SC verdict goes against the RTI demands, questions will be raised on the PUCL and Lok Prahari judgements as well, and then, we will be back to square one!
• Summary : A simple but deep issue is at stake - can the right to privacy help the judges not disclose their assets and liablities under RTI, citing informational privacy rights, or is being a public servant reason enough to have no such privacy?

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.