The Delhi High Court (HC) has observed that even if the PM CARES Fund is managed, supervised or controlled by the government, it does not automatically lose its right to privacy under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The court underlined that statutory privacy protections available to third parties under the RTI framework apply uniformly, regardless of whether an entity is public or private in nature.
A division bench of chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia made the observations while hearing an appeal filed by RTI applicant Girish Mittal, who is seeking disclosure of information submitted by the PM CARES Fund to the income tax (I-T) department for claiming tax exemption under the I-T Act.
During the hearing, the bench clarified that the case does not concern the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Instead, it relates to the protection accorded to third-party information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which restricts disclosure of personal or private information where such disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The HC observed that the nature of an entity being linked to the government does not take away its legal right to privacy under the RTI Act. “Even if it is State, merely because it is State, 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,” the bench remarked, questioning the argument that public authorities automatically forfeit privacy protections.
Chief justice Upadhyaya further explained that the RTI Act does not differentiate between public and private trusts when it comes to third-party rights under Section 8(1)(j). The protection, the HC stressed, applies uniformly irrespective of the nature of the entity.
Illustrating this point, the bench observed that a society or trust running a school or a football club would also be entitled to privacy under the RTI Act and that information concerning such entities cannot be disclosed without following the due process prescribed under the law.
The appeal arises from a dispute over an RTI application filed by Mr Mittal seeking copies of documents submitted by the PM CARES Fund to the I-T department while applying for tax exemption, along with file notings granting the approval and details of other exemption applications filed during the FY19–20 period. The central information commission (CIC) had earlier allowed the RTI application and directed disclosure of the information sought.
However, that CIC order was set aside in January 2024 by a single judge of the Delhi HC, who held that the CIC lacked jurisdiction to direct disclosure of information specifically protected under Section 138 of the I-T Act. The single judge ruled that Section 138, which governs disclosure of tax-related information, would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act which otherwise gives the RTI law overriding effect.
Challenging the single-judge ruling, Mr Mittal approached the division bench, arguing through his counsel that the PM CARES Fund, being a public charitable trust created by the government, cannot claim a right to privacy under the RTI Act.
His counsel contended that while the privacy of individuals deserves protection, such protection should not extend to entities like the PM CARES Fund. It was also argued that Section 138 of the I-T Act should not apply to the fund, and even if it does, it ought to be overridden by the RTI Act.
The bench, however, orally indicated that statutory privacy under the RTI Act is not confined to individuals alone and that juristic persons can also claim such protection. It also noted that disclosure of third-party information under the RTI Act requires adherence to procedural safeguards, including notice to the concerned third party.
After hearing the submissions, the Court adjourned the matter and listed it for further hearing on 10 February 2026, when additional solicitor general N Venkataraman is expected to make submissions on behalf of the I-T department.
BMC Shielding Corrupt Officers by Blocking 407 of 411 Corruption Probes Since 2018, Reveals RTI
Moneylife Digital Team
12 January 2026
BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has refused sanction in an overwhelming majority of corruption complaints referred to it over the past several years, effectively preventing even preliminary anti-corruption inquiries against...
CIC's Massive Backlog: Can New Appointments Save India's RTI Dream?
Chandramouli Mohan
12 January 2026
India's Right to Information (RTI) Act empowers ordinary citizens to demand transparency from government bodies and public authorities. However, the central information commission (CIC)—the final watchdog for RTI appeals—now drowns...
Who Controls Prime Govt Bungalows in Lutyens, New Delhi? RTI Appeal Seeks Answers
Moneylife Digital Team
26 December 2025
A fresh first appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has once again brought scrutiny on the management of government bungalows located in the Lutyens bungalow zone (LBZ) of New Delhi, raising questions over illegal...
Judicial Officer Not Expected To Use RTI Act To Know Reasons for Suspension: Supreme Court
Debayan Roy (Bar
and
Bench)
18 December 2025
The Supreme Court on Wednesday remarked that a judicial officer was not expected to file requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to uncover the reasons for his suspension.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya...
