personal information, as distinct from public information
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10044 OF 2010
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ….. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL ….. RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10045 OF 2010
A N D
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2683 OF 2010
J U D G M E N T
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
47. Clause (j) to sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act specifically
refers to invasion of the right to privacy of an individual and
excludes from disclosure information that would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of such individual, unless the
disclosure would satisfy the larger public interest test. This clause
also draws a distinction in its treatment of personal information,
whereby disclosure of such information is exempted if such
information has no relation to public activity or interest. We would
like to, however, clarify that in their treatment of this exemption,
this Court has treated the word ‘information’ which if disclosed
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 60 of 108
would lead to invasion of privacy to mean personal information, as
distinct from public information. This aspect has been dealt with in
the succeeding paragraphs.
48. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, the word ‘personal’
means ‘of or affecting a person or of or constituting personal
property’. In Collins Dictionary of the English Language, the word
‘personal’ has been defined as under:
“1. Of or relating to the private aspects of a person’s
life.
2. Of or relating to a person’s body, its care or its
appearance.
3. Belonging to or intended for a particular person and
no one else.
4. Undertaken by an individual himself.
5. Referring to, concerning, or involving a person’s
individual personality, intimate affairs, etc., esp. in an
offensive way.
6. Having the attributes of an individual conscious
being.
7. Of or arising from the personality.
8. Of or relating to, or denoting grammatical person.
9. Of or relating to movable property (Law).
10. An item of movable property (Law).”
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 61 of 108
49. In Peck v. United Kingdom31, the European Court of Human
Rights had held that private life is a broad term not susceptible to
exhaustive definition but includes the right to establish and
develop relationships with other human beings such that there is a
zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public
context, which may fall within the scope of private life.
Recognised facets of an individual’s private life include a person’s
health, ethnicity, personal relationships, sexual conduct; religious
or philosophical convictions and personal image. These facets
resemble what has been categorised as sensitive personal data
within the meaning of the Data Protection Act, 2018 as applicable
in the United Kingdom.
50. Gleeson CJ in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. Lenah
Game Meats Pty Ltd32
had distinguished between what is public
and private information in the following manner:
“An activity is not private simply because it is not done
in public. It does not suffice to make an act private
that, because it occurs on private proper property, it
has such measure of protection from the public gaze
as the characteristics of the property, the property
owner combine to afford. Certain kinds of information
about a person, such as information relating to health,
personal relationships, or finances, may be easy to
identify as private, as may certain kinds of activity
which a reasonable person, applying contemporary
31 (2003) EMLR 15
32 (2001) 185 ALR 1
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 62 of 108
standards of morals and behaviour, would understand
to be meant to be unobserved. The requirement that
disclosure or observation of information or conduct
would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of
ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful
practical test of what is private.”
51. This test had been adopted in several English decisions including
decision of the House of Lords in Campbell v. Mirror Group
Newspapers Limited33 wherein Lord Hope of Craighead had
further elucidated that the definition is taken from the definition of
‘privacy’ in the United States, where the right to privacy is invaded
if the matter which is publicised is of a kind that – (a) would be
highly offensive to a reasonable person and (b) not of legitimate
concern to the public. Law of privacy in Campbell (supra), it was
observed, was not intended for the protection of the unduly
sensitive and would cover matters which are offensive and
objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities who
must expect some reporting of his daily activities. The mind that
has to be examined is not that of a reader in general, but that of
the person who is affected by the publicising/dissemination of his
information. The question is what a reasonable person of ordinary
sensibilities would feel if he/she is subjected to such publicity.
Only when publicity is such that a reasonable person would feel
33 (2004) UKHL 22
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 63 of 108
justified in feeling seriously aggrieved that there would be an
invasion in the right to privacy which gives rise to a cause of
action.
52. In Douglas (supra), it was also held that there are different
degrees of privacy which would be equally true for information
given in confidentiality, and the potential for disclosure of the
information to cause harm is an important factor to be taken into
account in the assessment of the extent of the restriction to
protect the right to privacy.
53. While clause (j) exempts disclosure of two kinds of information, as
noted in paragraph 47 above, that is “personal information” with
no relation to public activity or interest and “information” that is
exempt from disclosure to prevent unwarranted invasion of
privacy, this Court has not underscored, as will be seen below,
such distinctiveness and treated personal information to be
exempt from disclosure if such disclosure invades on balance the
privacy rights, thereby linking the former kind of information with
the latter kind. This means that information, which if disclosed
could lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy rights, would
mean personal information, that is, which is not having co-relation
with public information