RTI vs. Privacy: Delhi High Court Weighs in on PM CARES Transparency Debate.
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
NEW DELHI 13, January,2026— In a significant deliberation on the intersection of transparency and the right to privacy, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday remarked that the PM CARES Fund does not forfeit its right to privacy under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, irrespective of whether it is deemed to be run or controlled by the Government.
A Division Bench, presided over by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, clarified that the protection in question does not stalk from the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, but rather from the statutory shield provided to third parties under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Judicial Observations on “Juristic Personality”
The Court emphasized that even if an entity discharges public functions or remains under state supervision, it maintains a distinct juristic personality.
“Even if it is State, merely because it is State, does it lose its right to privacy? Public or not, that would not differentiate as far as third-party rights under the RTI Act are concerned,” the Bench observed.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya further illustrated that the RTI Act draws no distinction between the privacy rights of a public or a private trust. He noted that if a trust running a school or a sports club were involved, the law would forbid the disclosure of its information without proper notice, treating it as a “third party.”
Background of the Appeal
The remarks were made during the hearing of an appeal filed by RTI activist Girish Mittal. Mittal had sought the disclosure of:
- Exemption applications and supporting documents submitted by the PM CARES Fund under the Income Tax Act.
- Internal file noting of the Income Tax Department that led to the granting of these exemptions.
While the Central Information Commission (CIC) had originally directed the Income Tax Department to disclose this information, a Single Judge of the High Court later quashed that directive. The Single Judge ruled that Section 138 of the Income Tax Act (which mandates confidentiality of assessed information) holds primacy over the general provisions of the RTI Act.
“Pertinently, Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act of 1961 makes the decision of Principal Chief Commissioner / Chief Commissioner final and immune to any challenge in any court of law. However, under RTI Act of 2005 any decision of the CPIO not to disclose the requisite information is subject to first appeal [Section 19(1)] before appellate authority as well as second appeal [Section 19(3)] before Central Information Commission / State Information Commission (which are neutral independent bodies). As a result of the impugned judgment, dated 22.01.2024, public authorities will be able to easily escape the scrutiny of independent bodies (CIC / SIC) in the matter of nondisclosure of information to citizens, seriously impinging upon their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”
Arguments of the Appellant
Representing the appellant, Advocate Pranav Sachdeva contended that a public charitable trust established by the government cannot claim a “right to privacy” to block transparency. He argued:
Section 8(1)(j) is intended to protect the privacy of individuals, not a fund of this nature.
Section 22 of the RTI Act contains a non-obstante clause that should override the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The swiftness with which the exemption was granted—allegedly within a single day—necessitates public scrutiny.
Next Steps in the Litigation
The Court has listed the matter for further hearing on February 10, 2026. On that date, Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman is expected to present the submissions on behalf of the Income Tax Department to counter the appellant’s claims.
