Section 8(1)(j): Information which relates to 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 unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
1. Nature and Scope of the Exemption
Section 8(1)(j) creates a qualified exemption from disclosure for information that is:
- Personal in nature, and
- Unrelated to any public activity or public interest, or
- Likely to result in an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual.
This provision recognizes the constitutional value of privacy and balances it against the citizen’s right to information.
2. Meaning of “Personal Information”
“Personal information” refers to information that:
- Pertains to an identifiable individual, and
- Is private or intimate in character (such as personal finances, medical records, family details, or private correspondence), and
- Is ordinarily not available in the public domain.
However, information does not become exempt merely because it relates to an individual; its context and nexus with public duties are crucial.
3. Public Activity or Public Interest Test
Disclosure is barred only when the personal information:
- Has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and
- Its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Where the information has a direct or indirect bearing on public duties, accountability, integrity of public office, or use of public resources, the exemption may not apply.
4. Larger Public Interest Override
Even where information qualifies as personal and private, disclosure may still be ordered if:
- The Central Public Information Officer, State Public Information Officer, or appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies disclosure.
“Larger public interest” is not defined, but judicial interpretation has linked it to:
- Transparency in public administration
- Accountability of public officials
- Prevention of corruption
- Protection of public funds or public trust
The burden lies on the authority to apply its mind and record reasons for disclosure.
5. Proviso: Parliamentary Disclosure Standard
The proviso establishes a high transparency benchmark:
Information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
This means:
- If the information is of such a nature that it must be disclosed to Parliament or a State Legislature,
- It cannot be withheld from an RTI applicant merely on grounds of privacy.
The proviso reinforces the principle that citizens are entitled to no less information than the legislature.
6. Balancing Privacy and Transparency
Section 8(1)(j) requires a balancing exercise, not automatic rejection. Authorities must consider:
- The nature of the information
- The role of the individual (private citizen vs public servant)
- The degree of privacy involved
- The public interest served by disclosure
Mechanical invocation of the exemption without analysis has been consistently disapproved by courts.
7. Judicial Approach
Courts have held that:
- Information relating to public servants, when connected to their official functions, is often subject to disclosure.
- Mere embarrassment or discomfort is not a valid ground for denial.
- Transparency is the rule; exemption is the exception.
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act does not impose an absolute bar on disclosure of personal information. It establishes a carefully calibrated exemption, subject to a public interest override and a constitutional standard of accountability. The provision mandates reasoned decision-making and a balance between individual privacy and democratic transparency.
Again, The degree related information of students is considered as directory information in the United States of America, and it is disclosable. It was not considered personal information. The United States has a law called the Family Educational Rights Protection Act (FERPA) relating to the disclosure of student-related information. The FERPA is aimed at protecting information related to students. The FERPA has clearly put three distinctions on the information of a student: educational information, personally identifiable information, and directory information. Each of which will vary in the limitations imposed by the FERPA.
Cases involving requests for disclosure of educational records fall under the ambit of directory information, which is defined as “information contained in an education record of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed.” Directory information is public information and will be made available to the public unless the student has restricted it. In no way does the disclosure of the information of a student’s educational records or his achievements or honours during his tenure at the institution amount to a breach of privacy.
Read More
Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
