Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Kaushal Kishor VS State of Uttar Pradesh...
2023 0 Supreme(SC) 5 : In cases where there is a conflict between the right to privacy of an individual and the right to information of the citizen, the former right has to be subordinated to the latter right as it serves the larger public interest. This principle was articulated in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) case by P. Venkatarama Reddi, J., and reaffirmed in other contexts involving competing rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21. However, the right to privacy under Article 21 is not merely protected against State action but also requires the State to uphold it against actions by private individuals, even when such actions are exercised under the guise of freedom of expression. Thus, while the right to information may prevail in certain public interest contexts, the right to privacy remains constitutionally protected and cannot be entirely sacrificed, especially in cases involving vigilantism or inquisitorial conduct by citizens.Checking relevance for Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India VS Subhash Chandra Agarwal...
2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1256 : In a conflict between the right of freedom of expression and the right of privacy, neither right is absolute. The right to information (a facet of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to privacy (a facet of Article 21) must be balanced. The determination depends on the context and requires a weighing of interests: the public interest in disclosure must be balanced against the privacy interest. The Information Officer must conduct this balancing exercise under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, considering factors such as the general welfare of the public, promotion of public debate, accountability of officials, and the public''''s stake in the information. The right to privacy can be overridden if the larger public interest justifies disclosure. The test is not absolute; it involves proportionality and an assessment of the relative strength of the interests in each individual case. The courts have emphasized that the right to privacy is not a shield against all disclosure and that transparency and accountability are essential for democratic governance, but they must be balanced with the need to protect personal privacy.Checking relevance for Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) VS Union of India...
2018 7 Supreme 129 : In a conflict between the right of freedom of expression and the right of privacy, the right to information (protected by Article 19(1)(a)) may prevail over the right to privacy (protected by Article 21) when it serves the larger public interest. This was established in People''''s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v Union of India, where the Court held that the fundamental right to information of voters promoting electoral democracy takes precedence over an individual''''s right to privacy, particularly when the information relates to candidates'''' assets and liabilities. The Court emphasized that the right to know about public figures is essential for effective democratic participation, and thus the right to privacy must be subordinated to the larger public interest in such cases.Checking relevance for Asha Ranjan VS State of Bihar...
2017 2 Supreme 643 : In a conflict between the right of freedom of expression and the right of privacy, the right that advances public morality or public interest will prevail. This principle was established in Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, (1998) 8 SCC 296, where the Court held that when there is a clash between two fundamental rights—such as the appellant’s right to privacy under Article 21 and another person’s right to lead a healthy life—the right that promotes public morality or public interest will be enforced by the court, as judges are not expected to remain passive but must be sensitive to such considerations.Checking relevance for JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD. ) VS UNION OF INDIA...
2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772 : In a conflict between the right of freedom of expression and the right of privacy, the right of privacy prevails when the disclosure of information constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy, particularly when the information relates to personal matters not connected to public activity or interest. The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and it is not absolute. However, the right to privacy may be limited by a law that is just, fair, and reasonable, and that serves a compelling state interest. The balance between these rights must be determined on a case-by-case basis, with the right to privacy being protected unless the larger public interest justifies its disclosure. The Right to Information Act, 2005, specifically recognizes this balance by allowing exemptions from disclosure where the information relates to personal information that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless the larger public interest justifies disclosure.
