Apka Adhikar

RTI: Exemption 8(1)(j)

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

FOIA has provisions for withholding personal information that might be a violation of the personal privacy. There are two such exemptions.

Exemption (6)
personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

Exemption (7) (c)
records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information…
could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,

There has been more litigation on this issue then probably any other single issue. The US courts have held that the language of (7)(c) is somewhat broader then the language of (6), and therefore most litigation pertains to (7)(c). The RTI language is far more liberal then the language of the FOIA. The RTI specifically allows disclosure of the information that would serve “larger public interest.” US Supreme Court arrived at the same conclusion when there is violation of a person’s privacy but there is a public interest in disclosure of the information. The Court ruled that in such a case the lower courts should balance the privacy interests of an individual and the public benefit from disclosure. Depending upon each individual case, the lower court should rule for or against the disclosure of the information. See the landmark case listed below as “Reporter’s Committee”. The courts in US have required the requestor of record to show that release of information is of public benefit, in such cases. How much evidence of public benefit is needed to overcome a person’s privacy interest? US Supreme Court answered this question in the case listed below as “NARA v Favish”. The Court promulgated the Reasonable Person Test. “The requestor must produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.” FOIA applied only to US Federal Government and its Agencies. The courts have defined the role of FOIA as to expose workings of the Government. Exposure of misuse of the government powers by its officers is the most important “public benefit”. RTI language is much broader and hopefully it will be interpreted more liberally by Indian Courts then the FOIA.

Reporter’s Committee

NARA v. Favish

There is a pending Kerala High Court case where government claims this exemption. Please see the details in the case Treesa Irish.