The main legal point established in the judgment is the balance between the right to privacy and right to information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, and the recognition that once something becomes a matter of public record, the right of privacy no longer exists, with exceptions in the interest of decency.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

1. Mr. Rajinder Jaina-petitioner seeks issue of Writ of Certiorari for quashing of Order dated 2nd March, 2009 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as CIC, for short) directing disclosure of the following information :-

“1. List of all complaints filed against Mr.Rajinder Jaina alias Rajender Jain alias Mr.Rajender Jaina S/o.T.C. Jain r/o. Flat „P?, Sagar Apartments, G. Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001, office at N-52A, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.

2. All FIR?s filed against the above named person along with ATR and current status.

3. All arrest warrants and non-traceable reports issued in the name of Mr.T.C.Jaina, father of Mr.Rajender Jaina.

4. List of all complaints filed against M/s.Rajendra?s and M/lord Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Period for which information asked for : From 1980 till date.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that disclosure of information mentioned above is an unwarranted invasion on the right to privacy of the petitioner and is contrary to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short).

4. Right to privacy has been a subject matter and reiterated in the State of Andhra Pradesh and District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and another versus Canara Bank and others (2005) 1 SCC 496. However, the said right is not an absolute right. Right to information is a part of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act balances right to privacy and right to information. It recognizes that both rights are important and require protection and in case of conflict between the two rights, the test of over-riding public interest is applied to decide whether information should be withheld or disclosed.

5. Section 8(i)(j) of the Act, stands interpreted by Ravindra Bhat, J. in The CPIO, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal & another (Writ Petition No. 288/2009) decided on 2nd September, 2009. It has been held as under:-

“66. It could arguably be said that that privacy rights, by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) whenever asserted, would prevail. However, that is not always the case, since the public interest element, seeps through that provision. Thus when a member of the public requests personal information about a public servant, - such as asset declarations made by him- a distinction must be made between the personal data inherent to the position and those that are not, and therefore affect only his/her private life. This balancing task appears to be easy; but is in practice, not so, having regard to the dynamics inherent in the conflict. If public access to the personal data containing details, like photographs of public servants, personal particulars such as their dates of birth, personal identification numbers, or other personal information furnished to public agencies, is requested, the balancing exercise, necessarily dependant and evolving on a case by case basis, would take into account of many factors which would require examination, having regard to circumstances of each case. These may include:

i) whether the disclosure of the personal information is with the aim of providing knowledge of the proper performance of the duties and tasks assigned to the public servant in any specific case;

ii)whether the information is deemed to comprise the individual ?s private details, unrelated to his position in the organization, and,

iii) whether the disclosure will furnish any information required to establish accountability or transparency in the use of public resources.

Section 8(1)(j)?s explicit mention of privacy,therefore,has to be viewed in the context. Lord Denning in his “What next in Law ”,presciently emphasized the need to suitably balance the competing values, as follows:

"English law should recognise a right to privacy. Any infringement of it should give a cause of action for damages or an injunction as the case may require. It should als