Personal information and privacy — s. 8(1)(j) in practice — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Personal information and privacy — s. 8(1)(j) in practice

This is the busiest problem in the whole paper — thirty variations on one theme. Someone wants a third party’s personal information: a colleague’s ACR, a rival candidate’s answer-script, a Minister’s assets, a stranger’s tax return. The answer almost always turns on one Supreme Court case, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013), and one three-step test. Master those and you can answer any of the thirty.

The three-step test under s. 8(1)(j)

Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information which either (a) has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or (b) would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy — unless the larger public interest justifies disclosure. Run every problem through three questions.

Step 1 — Is it ‘personal information’?

Does the information relate to an identifiable individual as a person (assets, medical records, caste/religion, ACRs, service details, family details, a private answer-script)? If it is genuinely institutional (aggregate statistics, official decisions), it is not personal and s. 8(1)(j) does not apply.

Step 2 — Is there a public-activity nexus?

Does the information relate to the person’s public activity or the discharge of a public function? A public servant’s official acts are open; but his personal details (assets, medical bills, ACRs, PAN, religion, caste) do not become public merely because he holds a public post.

Step 3 — Does a larger public interest override?

Even personal information must be disclosed if a demonstrated larger public interest outweighs the privacy harm (e.g. evidence of specific corruption). A vague “the public wants to know” is not enough; there must be a concrete public interest.

The governing authority is Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013): the assets, service record and ACRs of a government servant are personal information exempt under s. 8(1)(j) unless a public interest is shown. This was reinforced in Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2018) (transfer/service details of employees are personal) and refined for the judiciary in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019).

Two recurring rules make the thirty problems easy:

Your OWN information is not a third party’s. A candidate can get his own answer-script (CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011); an employee can get his own ACR. But he cannot get a colleague’s script or ACR — that is third-party personal information.
A public post does not strip privacy. A Minister’s or officer’s assets, health records, PAN or religion stay personal unless a specific public interest is shown.

Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act, 2005 (as originally enacted): “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.”

In Simple Terms: Personal information about an individual (assets, medical records, ACRs, caste) is protected — even for a public servant — unless it relates to a public function or a real public interest demands it. Your own personal information is not “third party” information, so you can get it; someone else’s you usually cannot.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — ‘a public servant, so his assets are public’

The commonest decoy: “he is a Minister/officer answerable to the people, so his assets/health/service record must be public.” Girish Deshpande (2013) holds the opposite — a public servant’s personal information is exempt unless a specific larger public interest is demonstrated. Blanket “he is a public figure” reasoning fails; you must point to a concrete public interest, or the refusal stands.

⚠️ CAUTION — the DPDP Act, 2023 amendment to s. 8(1)(j)

⚠️ Do NOT assume the “public activity / larger public interest” wording is untouched. Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amends s. 8(1)(j) to read simply “information which relates to personal information” — dropping the public-activity nexus and the public-interest proviso. This is widely criticised as diluting RTI. For KSLU exams, apply the settled jurisprudence (Girish Deshpande, Subhash Chandra Agarwal) and its three-step test, but flag the amendment as the current statutory position and a live controversy.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — ‘my own script and my friend’s’

Facts. A student asks the Board for a photocopy of his own answer-script and his friend’s.

Rule. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): an evaluated script is “information” and disclosable to the candidate. s. 8(1)(j): another candidate’s script is third-party personal information.

Apply. His own script → disclosable, no exemption. His friend’s script → third-party personal information under s. 8(1)(j), with no public-activity nexus and no larger public interest; the valuer’s identity, if any, is separately protected by s. 8(1)(g).

Conclusion. Give the applicant his own script; refuse the friend’s under s. 8(1)(j).

flowchart TD
    A["Request for personal information"]
    A --> B{"Step 1: personal info of an individual?"}
    B -->|"No (institutional/aggregate)"| C["Disclose"]
    B -->|"Yes"| D{"Step 2: nexus to public activity?"}
    D -->|"Yes (official acts)"| C
    D -->|"No (assets/ACR/health/caste)"| E{"Step 3: larger public interest?"}
    E -->|"Yes (specific)"| C
    E -->|"No"| F["Exempt u/s 8(1)(j)"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,C,F box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class B,D,E q;

Case Laws

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) — assets, service record and ACRs of a public servant are personal information exempt under s. 8(1)(j) absent public interest.
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — a candidate’s own evaluated answer-script is disclosable; not exempt as fiduciary.
Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2018) — employees’ transfer/service details are personal information under s. 8(1)(j).
CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) — judges’ personal information weighed under s. 8(1)(j) and public interest; office of CJI a public authority.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics