Delhi High Court Affirms PM CARES Privacy Under RTI - 2026-01-14

Delhi High Court Affirms PM CARES Privacy Under RTI

In a significant development for the intersection of transparency and privacy in Indian law, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has orally observed that the PM CARES Fund, despite its close ties to the government, retains statutory privacy protections under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Even if assumed to be a "State" or public authority, the fund—as a juristic entity—cannot be denied third-party information safeguards under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This remark came during the hearing of an appeal challenging a single judge's order that quashed a Central Information Commission (CIC) directive to disclose tax exemption documents related to the fund. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, emphasized that government supervision does not erode an entity's right to privacy in RTI proceedings. The case underscores ongoing tensions between public accountability and the confidentiality of fiscal matters, with the next hearing scheduled for February 10, 2025, where the Income Tax Department will submit its arguments. For legal professionals navigating RTI applications involving public trusts, this signals a robust defense of procedural privacy, potentially reshaping disclosure practices.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy traces back to an RTI application filed by Mumbai-based activist Girish Mittal in 2022, seeking detailed information from the Income Tax Department's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) regarding tax exemptions granted to the PM CARES Fund. Established in 2020 as a public charitable trust with the Prime Minister as ex-officio chairperson and key cabinet ministers as trustees, the PM CARES Fund has been a focal point for transparency debates due to its role in managing public donations for emergency relief, including COVID-19 efforts. Mittal's request was comprehensive: copies of all documents submitted by the fund for its exemption application under the Income Tax Act, 1961; file notings approving the exemption; a list of all exemption applications filed between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, including filing dates, approval dates, and reasons for any rejections.

The CPIO rejected the application, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts "personal information" unrelated to public activity or interest, arguing it would invade the privacy of the assessee (PM CARES Fund). The First Appellate Authority upheld this, further stating that the fund itself did not fall under the RTI Act's definition of a public authority. Undeterred, Mittal escalated the matter to the CIC, which in its April 27, 2022, order partially allowed the plea. While refusing details on other exemption applications to protect third-party privacy, the CIC directed the CPIO to disclose the factual position on the availability of PM CARES documents and provide copies within 15 days, deeming the information central to public interest.

This CIC directive prompted immediate pushback from the Income Tax Department, which filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. In July 2022, a coordinate bench stayed the CIC order. The case reached a single judge bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad, who in January 2024 delivered a landmark ruling quashing the CIC's direction. Justice Prasad held that the CIC lacked jurisdiction to compel disclosure of information protected under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, which strictly limits revelations about assessees without prior satisfaction and authorization from high-ranking officials like the Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax. He ruled that Section 138 constitutes a specific statutory bar that overrides the general overriding effect of Section 22 of the RTI Act. Moreover, even if jurisdiction existed, the CIC's failure to issue notice to the third party (PM CARES Fund) under Section 11 of the RTI Act vitiated the order, as it denied the fund procedural fairness. Mittal, represented by advocate Pranav Sachdeva, then appealed to the Division Bench, arguing that a government-established trust like PM CARES cannot claim individual-like privacy and that RTI's transparency mandate should prevail.

The Division Bench's Key Observations

During the January 2025 hearing (noted as Tuesday in sources, aligning with recent proceedings), the Division Bench delved into the heart of the privacy debate, making pointed oral observations that affirm the PM CARES Fund's entitlements. Chief Justice Upadhyaya, leading the inquiry, challenged the notion that government affiliation strips away privacy rights. He remarked, "Even if it is State, merely because it is State, it does it lose its right to privacy… How can you say that? Merely because there is an entity discharging certain public functions, or if it is managed, supervised and controlled by the government, it is still a juristic personality. How can you deny such a right [right to privacy] conferred on it merely because it is a public authority."

The bench clarified that these protections stem not from the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution—which applies to natural persons—but from the statutory framework of the RTI Act itself. Section 8(1)(j) explicitly bars disclosure of personal or third-party information unless it relates to public activity or interest and does not unwarrantedly invade privacy. The court stressed uniformity: "The privacy protections available to third parties under the RTI Act apply uniformly, irrespective of whether an entity is public or private in nature." To illustrate, Chief Justice Upadhyaya posed a hypothetical: "“Suppose there is a society or a trust running a school or a football club. Would that society have a right to privacy [under RTI Act] or not… Can you say that without notice to that trust, this information can be given to you? Public or not, that would not differentiate, as far as third-party rights under the RTI Act is concerned.”"

These observations underscore that juristic entities, including public trusts, retain a distinct legal personality entitled to safeguards. The bench rejected any blanket exception for government-linked bodies, insisting on due process before any disclosure. This stance builds on the single judge's procedural emphasis, potentially fortifying barriers against hasty RTI-mandated revelations.

Distinguishing Statutory from Constitutional Privacy

A critical nuance in the court's remarks is the demarcation between constitutional and statutory privacy. The bench explicitly stated that the case "does not concern the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution," which has evolved through landmark judgments like Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) to encompass informational self-determination for individuals. Instead, the focus is on the RTI Act's tailored exemptions, designed to balance the right to information—a facet of Article 19(1)(a) free speech—with protections against misuse.

Under Section 8(1)(j), disclosure is withheld if it involves "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." Notably, the provision uses "individual," but judicial interpretations, including this hearing, extend it to juristic persons like trusts and societies. This extension aligns with precedents recognizing corporations and entities as bearers of certain privacy interests, particularly in commercial or sensitive data contexts. By analogizing to non-governmental entities like school trusts, the court reinforces that public function discharge does not equate to total transparency forfeiture. For legal scholars, this invites scrutiny: Does equating public trusts with private ones unduly shield government-adjacent operations from accountability?

Key Legal Provisions Involved

At the dispute's core lie clashing statutory regimes. Section 22 of the RTI Act declares it a "notwithstanding" law, overriding inconsistent provisions in other enactments. However, the single judge—and implicitly the Division Bench—invoked the principle that specific, later, or more stringent provisions prevail over general ones. Section 138 of the Income Tax Act exemplifies this: It prohibits disclosure of assessee details except with the Commissioner's recorded reasons, aiming to protect fiscal confidentiality vital for voluntary compliance and economic stability.

The RTI application's demand for exemption files implicates this bar, as such documents contain sensitive financial data. The CIC's inconsistent approach—disclosing PM CARES info while shielding others—further highlighted procedural flaws, as noted by Justice Prasad: "The satisfaction of these authorities [under Section 138] cannot be transferred to any other authority under a general act." Section 11 RTI adds another layer, mandating notice to affected third parties and an opportunity for objections before disclosure. The CIC's omission here rendered its order vulnerable, a point likely to influence future appellate scrutiny.

Arguments Presented by the RTI Applicant

Mittal's counsel, Pranav Sachdeva, mounted a vigorous challenge, contending that PM CARES, as a "public charitable trust established by the government," falls outside Section 8(1)(j)'s purview. He argued, “Privacy of individuals is to be protected. But this sort of entity [PM Cares Fund] will not have any privacy.” Sachdeva posited that the fund's public nature and welfare functions demand full transparency, overriding Income Tax Act protections. He asserted Section 22 RTI's supremacy, dismissing Section 138 as inapplicable to a quasi-governmental body, and urged that public interest in fund accountability—amid past controversies over donations and audits—warrants disclosure.

This position echoes broader RTI activism, where applicants often test boundaries to expose opaque public spending. However, the bench's skepticism suggests limited traction, viewing the argument as conflating entity status with privacy waiver.

Procedural Lapses and Jurisdictional Issues

The single judge's ruling pivoted on two pillars: jurisdictional overreach and procedural infirmity. By directing disclosure without navigating Section 138's safeguards, the CIC encroached on specialized tax administration, a domain reserved for expert fiscal authorities. Justice Prasad noted the order's "inconsistency," as it exempted other applications for privacy reasons yet singled out PM CARES, implying arbitrary application. The absence of Section 11 notice was fatal, violating natural justice principles enshrined in Indian jurisprudence.

For practitioners, this reinforces that RTI appeals must incorporate third-party involvement early, lest orders be struck down. It also cautions against CIC's expansive interpretations, potentially curbing its role in fiscal transparency cases.

Implications for Legal Practice and Transparency

This unfolding jurisprudence carries profound implications for legal professionals. RTI lawyers may face steeper challenges in securing third-party data from public authorities, with courts now affirming uniform privacy for juristic entities. Tax practitioners benefit from bolstered confidentiality under Section 138, reducing risks of compelled disclosures in exemption or assessment proceedings. For public trusts and NGOs, the ruling signals that government oversight does not invite unrestricted scrutiny, aiding in shielding operational details.

Yet, it heightens tensions in India's transparency ecosystem. The PM CARES Fund, often criticized for lacking parliamentary oversight unlike the National Defence Fund, exemplifies how privacy exemptions can obscure public welfare allocations. Critics argue this erodes accountability, potentially deterring donor trust and inviting misuse allegations. In a post- Puttaswamy era, where privacy is a fundamental right, extending statutory protections to entities risks diluting public interest overrides under Section 8(2) RTI. Legal academics may debate whether this tilts the balance toward secrecy, especially for funds handling billions in public donations.

Broader systemic impacts include refined CIC practices: Expect stricter adherence to procedural notices and jurisdictional humility vis-à-vis domain-specific laws. For the justice system, it promotes due process, preventing "fishing expeditions" in RTI queries. However, in high-stakes areas like charitable taxation, it could slow information flow, affecting policy advocacy and litigation.

Upcoming Developments

The Division Bench has adjourned the matter to February 10, 2025, for submissions from Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman on behalf of the Income Tax Department. This could solidify or refine the oral observations into a formal judgment, potentially setting precedent for similar disputes involving public entities like the Ram Mandir Trust (a related CIC case recently overturned). Stakeholders await clarity on whether public interest can pierce these privacy veils.

Conclusion: Balancing Privacy and Accountability

The Delhi High Court's stance in the PM CARES matter reaffirms that statutory privacy under RTI is not a privilege reserved for private actors but a shield for all juristic persons, public or private. While safeguarding sensitive information, it challenges the RTI Act's democratizing intent, urging lawmakers to address gaps in public fund transparency. For legal professionals, this case is a reminder to meticulously navigate intersecting statutes, ensuring procedural rigor in transparency quests. As India grapples with digital-age accountability, such rulings will shape the evolving dialectic between openness and protection, ultimately influencing governance trust.