Personal information and Sec 8(1)(j)

[taurus]

Personal information and Sec 8(1)(J)

Under the RTI Act, can one ask for information that is ‘personal’? This may appear to be a very impertinent question because all the time we find applications coming under RTI only for information that is considered ‘personal’ to the one who asks for the information itself or ‘personal’ belonging to others. Though most often information that is considered ‘personal’ to the information seeker himself or herself is given sometimes the PIO or even the CIC on appeal, take a stand that if it does not have any relationship to public activity or interest, such information need not be furnished under the RTI Act. But there are others who feel that such an interpretation is illegal. They feel that as long as information does not fall under any of the categories of exemptions provided in the Act in Sec 8 such information should be furnished. But Sec 8(1) itself has a sub section (j) that is quoted by both the sides.
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act 2005, (RTI Act) is one of those peculiar sections of the Act which is subjected to differing interpretations. The Section reads as follows:

“ 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.”

Now, there are two differing schools of thought regarding what is the connotation of the word ‘personal information’ is this section – whether it connotes to the personal information of the information seeker or it connotes to the personal information of a third party or both. There is one school of thought that points out that the Act has separate sections like Sec 11 and Sec 7(7), that deal with third party information. Therefore, Sec 8(1)(j) should be interpreted as connoting to the information seeker only and not any third party. Another school of thought is that it naturally does not connote the information seeker himself because we cannot allege that he is trying to invade his own privacy under this section. Some of the interesting cases decided by the Central Information Commission on appeal are discussed below to bring out the conflict in interpretation even at that level.
In the matter of Shri M.K. Kinhikar, Mumbai, the appellant asked for certain information from the Principal Chief Post Master General, Mumbai, pertaining to a recruitment in which some irregularities allegedly took place. Since the information was denied to him he approached the CIC on second appeal. In the order of the CIC[1] the following observation was made:


“While submitting his first appeal to the AA, the appellant has clearly
pleaded how the information that he is seeking is not relating to a third party
and it is solely related to his own case. I fully agree with the views
expressed by the appellant in his first appeal before the AA. In this
connection I would like to reiterate the decision by the Commission in
appeal No.120/ICPB/2006 dated 9.10.2006, wherein it is clearly defined
how Section 8.1(j) should be applied. I hereby reproduce as to how Section
8.1(j) has been interpreted in the said decision :
“In so far as application of 8(1)(j) is concerned, the appellant is right
in her contention that personal information relating to the information seeker
cannot be denied under Section 8(1)(j).
In another case, I have explained the scope of Section 8(1)(j) as follows: “This Section reads “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”.

This Section has to be read as a whole. If done so, it would be apparent that that “personal information” does not mean information relating to the
information seeker, but about a third party. That is why, in the Section, it is
stated “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual”. If one were
to seek information about himself or his own case, the question of invasion
of privacy of his own self does not arise. If one were to ask information
about a third party and if it were to invade the privacy of the individual, the
information seeker can be denied the information on the ground that
disclosure would invade the privacy of a third party. Therefore, when a
citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the information
sought is not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act,
this section cannot be applied to deny the information.”
Therefore, the CPIO/AA could not have applied Section 8.1(j) to deny
the information.”

A very similar stand was taken by the same Information Commissioner in the case of Manohar Singh (NTPC), wherein he had asked for copies ofhis pay fixation statement[2]. Again in the case of Lokesh Sharma (SBI) the same IC has taken a similar stand[3]. In this case the individual asked for details regarding disciplinary action taken against him. Similar stand was taken by the same IC in the case of PN Shukla (Canara Bank ) also, where he sought for information regarding his appeals and promotion[4].

However, in the matter of Wing Cdr Shakul Tyagi where the appellant asked for from the Air Headquarters, some file notings regarding his premature retirement, the Information Commissioner, Mr AN Tiwari, observed[5] as follows:

“Apart from Section 8(1)(e) the disclosure of file notings in the particular case
ought to be tested against Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This Section bars disclosure
of information which relates to “personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest…..”

The appellant argued that the expression personal information in Section 8(1)(j)
cannot apply to a person who is seeking information in his own case. He pointed out
that by seeking this information he was really attempting at unraveling the
discriminatory policies followed by the Air Force Headquarters in matters of granting
premature retirement requests. It is noticed that the CPIO has provided to the appellant considerable information for both his queries, except what the appellant has applied for in “document 2”, viz. the exact file notings and the decision-making process about the
denial of premature retirement to the appellant.

Section 8(1)(j), in which the expression ‘personal information’ has been used,
makes no distinction between personal information pertaining to an appellant himself or
a third party. In fact, in regard to personal information of third parties, there are clear
and distinctive provisions in the Act itself, viz. Section 7(7) and Section 11. The
Section / sub-section which deals with all other categories of ‘personal information’
including the one about the present appellant is Section 8(1)(j). A plain reading of this
sub-section leads to the unerring conclusion that (a) any information which pertains to a
person who is seeking that information is in the class of “personal information” and (b)
such information need not be disclosed unless it is shown to relate to a public activity or
interest.

The argument that the expression personal information used in Section 8(1)(j) is
about such information concerning anyone other than the person/appellant himself, is
untenable for the simple reason that in the scheme of RTI Act there are independent sets
of provisions to cater exclusively to personal (as well as other information categories)
information about third parties. Arguably, even sub-section 8(1)(j) will apply also to
personal information of a third party, but to say that it will not apply to information
about the person who is the appellant himself will be contrary to the scheme of the Act,
and its provisions.

It is my inference therefore that the term personal information used in
Section 8(1)(j) covers all such information which can be classified as “personal”.
It makes no distinction between personal information pertaining to an appellant and
personal information pertaining to someone else. All that needs to be established to
satisfy the requirement of this Act, is that the information sought by the appellant either
about himself or about somebody else is personal in nature. And this may very well be.
This Commission has received a number of cases from persons such as the present
appellant who have attempted to use the RTI Act to promote a personal agenda. There
have been cases where public servants, both civilians and in the Armed Forces, have
attempted to access vital decision-making information in respect of premature release
cases, suspension from service, vigilance enquiries, Annual Confidential Report
dossiers, and so on. The themes of these petitions are different but the purpose is
usually the same, i.e. to gain access to file-notings that will reveal information about
which officer in the hierarchy took what position in respect of the person’s specific
case. This information in the hands of the person can then be used to attempt to
intimidate and pressurize those officers whose names will now be in the open, or in
worst cases, to initiate legal proceedings against them for alleged mala-fide decisions.
The end-result of such proceedings by these interested persons may be nothing, but in
the meanwhile the officers taking these decisions will be subjected to wholly avoidable
pressures. A new front, wholly unnecessary, shall be opened against the officers for no
better reason than taking genuine and most bona-fide actions within the call of their
duty. This will surely not contribute to better governance nor will it promote
accountability or transparency in governance.

The RTI Act has, therefore, very thoughtfully excluded such personal
information from the purview of the Act and, has subtly hinted that it is more inclined towards promoting disclosures with a bearing on public interest rather than information which have had no such bearing.

It is my conclusion that the information sought by the present appellant through
Document 2 of his RTI-request squarely falls within the exemption of Section 8(1)(j)
and is not liable for disclosure “

Again in the matter ofDeepak J. Mehta decided by the same Information Commissioner[6] the appellant asked for certain information, from the Director General of Income-Tax, regarding the vigilance action taken against certain firms. In this case it was observed:

“ There is one other aspect which also needs to be highlighted in matters such as this. Section 8(1)(j) exempts from disclosure personal information which have had no relationship to any public activity or interest. In my view, the information solicited by the appellant pointedly attracts this exemption. The information pertains to no one but himself and hence is `personal’ as defined in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This information also have had no relationship to any public activity or interest being wholly personal to the appellant. No amount of reference to victimization and concerted attempt to distract him from his role of whistle blower will succeed in removing this case from the orbit of exemption of Section 8(1)(j).
It also needs to be emphasized that the Commission is receiving several appeals from officers facing vigilance enquiries, departmental proceedings and investigations. To grant access into information the disclosure of which at a stage earlier than mandated by the rules of such enquires and investigations would cause the weakening of the investigation process or delaying it. The attempt in most cases, as in this one, is to know the names of those officers who recommend vigilance proceedings, enquiries or investigations. There is an ever present danger of such disclosures exposing the officers who perform thankless functions in the line of duty to avoidable risks. It is, therefore, important that confidentiality of certain types of information is maintained in the interest of the integrity of the investigation process as well as the officers who conduct the vigilance enquiry. A combined reading of Sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) unerringly points to the conclusion that the disclosure of the information as requested by the appellant must be barred not only as enjoined by these exemption clauses but also in the context of the preamble of the RTI Act which mandates containment of corruption as an avowed objective of the Act.”


The same IC in the case of Pankaj Vora[7] drew a distinction between an action of a Public authority affecting a single individual and several. In this case the appellant asked for the following information;


“M/s.Hardware Trading Corporation, Mumbai had imported Boric Acid for non insecticidal use in 2004. The goods are still not cleared and held by Mulund CFS. I want to inspect related file under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Kindly permit me to inspect works, documents, records, take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents on records etc in respect of the said file and oblige.”

He received a reply from the CPIO, dated 17.8.2007 declining to disclose this information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The AA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
The AA’s order noted that the cause of action for the RTI-petition in this appeal by the appellant has been his dispute with the respondents about violation of the Foreign Trade Policy by the appellant in import of Boric Acid for non insecticidal use in 2004. Focusing on the background of the matter, the AA has stated as follows-

“The issue was examined and replied by the CPIO, Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, vide his Order No.58/2007 dated 17.07.2007 issued vide F.No.RTICG/GEN-73/2007 in respect of the aforesaid information sought by the Appellant, Shri Pankaj Vora. In the said Order, the CPIO observed that theimport of Boric Acid by M/s. Hardware Trading Corporation at Mulund CFS was in violation of the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and hence the case was adjudicated. This order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeal), JNCH who rejected the Appeal vide Appeal Order No.12/2005 (JNCH) dated 15.02.2005. This Appeal order was challenged before CESTAT. An appeal Order No.M/459/WZB/2006/CSTB/C-I dated 29.06.2006 was issued in this respect by the CESTAT. The CESTAT Appeal Order was challenged by the Department in the High Court and at present is pending decision in respect of Final Order. In this context, the CPIO observed that, the Appellant desires to clear his consignment by seeking information under RTI Act 2005 and frustrate the Department stand before the High Court.”

The AA further noted that the CPIO had cited certain decisions of the CIC that if an information is known to be personal to an applicant, unless a clear public purpose can be cited for its disclosure, it can be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The AA concluded that since the appellant had failed to prove conclusively that any larger public interest or public purpose was at stake, besides his personal interest in this case (as the appellant is a partner in the reporting firm), the information was not liable to be disclosed as it was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. She also held that as the matter was sub-judice, the CPIO was well within his right to deny the requested information to the appellant, and that if the had had any disagreement with the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy about a certain import, the appropriate forum for redresal of that grievance could be the adjudicating officers under relevant Acts apart from the Courts. Appellant cannot invoke the provisions of RTI Act for such redressals.

The short-point for disposal in this case is whether the information as requested by the appellant comes within the prohibition of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

There is no doubt that the information solicited by the appellant was personal to the appellant and the firm he represented. But it is equally true that the documents sought to be inspected by him pertained to the actions of the respondents as authorized public authority in this particular matter. The question to be asked is whether a person should be denied the right to query the functioning of a particular public authority and to inspect the documents, records, etc. pertaining to that function simply because the matter pertains to a single individual and, not to many.

In my view, when a public authority takes certain actions under a statute or rule or any instructions issued by a competent authority, that action becomes liable for appropriate disclosure enquiry under the RTI Act, and should it be proved that the information as requested by the appellant falls within Section 2(f) read with Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, such information cannot be withheld simply because the object of that action has been a single individual. The true test in all such matters should be whether the public authority has been discharging a function in any given matter as per the charter of its responsibilities and not whether the end result of such public authority’s actions is a single individual or a collective. The Commission, therefore, notes that the respondents in this case have asked the wrong types of questions and hence have arrived at erroneous conclusion. The question they ought to have asked is not whether the object of their action was a single individual, but whether the questions asked by that single individual pertained to the actions of the public authority.

In this particular case, the AA and the CPIO have not analyzed the nuances of disclosure of the information as requested by the appellant principally because they had concluded that such information need not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. What they ought to be examining is whether disclosure of this information, if authorized, will jeopardize the functioning of the public authority in a manner that would attract provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

The Commission, therefore, while holding that the matter in this RTI-application cannot be said to be ‘personal’, that would attract the exemption under Section 8(1)(j), is not inclined to authorize disclosure straight away, before other aspects of such disclosure are fully examined (i.e. under sub-sections of Section 8(1)).

The matter is, therefore, remitted back to the AA, with a direction that he shall examine whether, given the nature of the disclosure sought, it would attract any of the sub-sections of the Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, other than Section 8(1)(j). The AA should also examine whether Section 10(1) (severability provision) can be invoked to disclose that part of the information which may not come within the bar of any of the exemption sub-sections of the RTI Act.”




However a different stand is taken by the other IC, Smt Padma Balasubramanian in the matter of P.Saravanan[8]

“The appellant is requesting for the supply of question papers as well as the mark sheets secured by him in the said examination and he has said the PIO has wrongly quoted section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act while denying this information since he is requesting for the information pertaining to his own case. It is a fact that the CPIO and AA have quoted section 8(1)(j) wrongly while denying information, but section 8(1)(j) has to be read as a whole and in that case it would indicate clearly that the information is pertaining to the information of third party since there is an element of invasion of privacy of the individual and it is applicable only in respect of third party and not when one seeks information about his own case. This should be kept in mind while interpreting section 8(1)(j) in future. As far as the appellant is concerned he is not entitled for this information as per the various decisions taken by this Commission in this regard. In this connection the decision taken by The full Commission in S/Shri Shiv Shambhu, Sanjiv Kumar & Ors vs. U.P.S.C. & Ors Decision No. 354/IC (A)/MA/2006 - F.No.CIC/MA/2006/00793 dated 13.11.2006, can be referred by the parties, wherein these aspects are discussed in detail. The decisions of this Commission can be seen at our website CIC. On the above lines, all three appeals stand disposed of.”

Similarly, in the matter of SK Sharma, Dept of Posts[9], the same IC has taken a similar stand:

“The only information denied to the appellant is that of a copy of the order
recorded by the Minister, on the basis of which a charge sheet was issued to the appellant.
The CPIO and the AA declined to furnish the information applying the exemptions
provided in Section 8(1)(g) and (j) of the RTI Act. The scope and ambit of Section 8(1)
(j) has been explained in a recent decision of the Full Bench of this Commission in the
following terms: “In so far as application of Section 8(1)(j) to deny disclosure on the
ground that personal information which has no public interest is concerned, it is
necessary to explain the scope and ambit of this sub section. Section 8(1)(j) reads
“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”. This Section has to be read as a whole. If done so, it would be
apparent that that “personal information” does not mean information relating to the
information seeker, but about a third party. That is why, in the Section, it is stated
“unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual”. If one were to seek information
about himself or his own case, the question of invasion of privacy of his own self does
not arise. If one were to ask information about a third party and if it were to invade the
privacy of the individual, the information seeker can be denied the information on
the ground that disclosure would invade the privacy of a third party. Therefore, when
a citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the information sought is
not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section cannot be
applied to deny the information”. (Decision dated 23.4.2007 in Appeal Nos.
CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 -Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs Lok Sabha
Secretariat—Paragraph No 32) In the present case, the appellant is seeking information
about his own case and therefore, the same cannot be denied under Section 8(1) (j).”



Finally, the full bench decision referred to above pertaining to the case of Rakesh Kumar Singh and others, clarifies the matter nicely as follows:

“In so far as application of Section 8(1)(j) to deny disclosure on the ground
that personal information which has no public interest is concerned, it is
necessary to explain the scope and ambit of this sub section. Section 8(1)(j)
reads as under:

“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”.

This Section has to be read as a whole. If that were done, it would be
apparent that that “personal information” does not mean information relating to
the information seeker, but about a third party. That is why, in the Section, it is
stated “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual”. If one were to
seek information about himself or his own case, the question of invasion of
privacy of his own self does not arise. If one were to ask information about a third
party and if it were to invade the privacy of the individual, the information
seeker can be denied the information on the ground that disclosure would
invade the privacy of a third party. Therefore, when a citizen seeks information
about his own case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in terms
of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section cannot be applied to
deny the information. Thus, denial for inspection/verification of his own answer
sheets by a citizen applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) is not sustainable.”

One would hope that such unequivocal conclusion drawn by the full bench should have been followed by the members of the Commission in all the cases atleast after the date of pronouncing this order viz. 23.04.2007. But it is not to be so. Even after this date some of the decisions have taken a different view as discussed earlier. For a PIO it would be prudent to follow the interpretation of the Full Bench of the CIC as above!

International practices

Different countries follow different procedures in dealing with personal information. Most countries have two different sets of laws – one dealing with freedom of information and the other protecting privacy of information. The law relating to freedom of information guarantees supply of information in general. These also contain various exempting clauses. Simultaneously the data protection act ensures that the privacy of the individuals is not invaded in the guise of freedom of information. To put it in a nutshell these countries respect the right to information and the right to personal privacy equally. When there is a conflict between the two, decisions are taken based on public good. (Even though we don’t have two such different sets of laws in India our position is also the same in essence, in as much as our RTI Act also strikes a balance between the right to information and invasion of privacy.)
Canadian access to information laws distinguish between access to records generally and access to records that contain personal information about the person making the request. Subject to exceptions, individuals have a right of access to records that contain their own personal information under the Privacy Act but the general public does not have a right of access to records that contain personal information about others under the Access to Information Act.
In the USA also there are restrictions on divulging personal information. Personal privacy interests are protected by two provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Exemptions 6 and 7(C). While the application of Exemption 7(C), is limited to information compiled for law enforcement purposes, Exemption 6 permits the government to withhold all information about individuals in "personnel and medical files and similar files" when the disclosure of such information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." These exemptions are a vitally important part of the FOIA's statutory scheme, but of course they cannot be invoked to withhold from requester information pertaining only to himself.
Information which should be withheld from third parties pursuant to Exemption 6 generally pertains to an employee's personal life and family status. Matters capable of causing embarrassment and or harassment and which are not pertinent to the employee's duties should also be protected under Exemption 6. Such privacy interests specifically include, but are not limited to: place and date of birth; age; marital status; home address and telephone number; medical records; details of health and insurance benefits; the substance of promotion recommendations; supervisory assessments of professional conduct and ability; information concerning or provided by relatives and references; prior employment not related to the employee's occupation; primary, secondary and collegiate education; allegations of misconduct or arrests; and military service number and Social Security number. Only individuals have privacy interests. Corporations and other legal persons have no privacy rights under the sixth exemption. The US Supreme court has laid down, in the famous case of Reporters Committee, five guiding principles to determine whether in a particular case Exemptions 6 or 7C could be used. These are as follows:· substantial privacy interests can exist in personal information even though the information has been made available to the general public at some place and point in time;· the identity of the requesting party has no bearing on the merits of his or her FOIA request;· in determining whether any public interest would be served by a requested disclosure, one should no longer consider the purposes for which the request for information is made; such determinations must turn on the nature of the requested document and its relationship to the public interest generally;· the public interest to be considered under the Act's privacy exemptions is limited to the kind of public interest for which Congress enacted the FOIA. This "core purpose of the FOIA," is to shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties; and · under Exemption 7(C), agencies may engage in "categorical balancing" in favour of nondisclosure. Under this approach, which builds upon the above principles, it may be determined, "as a categorical matter," that a certain type of information always is protectible under an exemption, without regard to individual circumstances. Under the US law the burden of establishing that disclosure would serve the public interest is on the requester. This is a significant aspect. A number of US courts determined that a request made for purely commercial purposes does not further a public interest. As the purpose of the Act is to ensure transparency and fight corruption, information that would inform the public of violations of the public trust has a strong public interest and is accorded great weight in the balancing process. As a general rule, demonstrated wrongdoing of a serious and intentional nature by a high-level government official is of sufficient public interest to outweigh almost any privacy interest of that official.
In UK, Sec 40 of the Freedom of Information Act, defines what is personal interest and also sets out the exemptions from disclosing such personal interest data. Here again there are two different Acts as already stated – one upholding the right to information and the other protecting certain data.
The exemption in Section 40 of the Act can be summarised as follows:
If the personal data is about the person requesting the information, then there
is no right to know under the Freedom of Information Act. There is an absolute
exemption to its release. However, any such requests should be treated as
subject access requests under the Data Protection Act. This means that
despite the exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, the applicant
has a right to request his or her information under the Data Protection Act.
If the personal data is about someone other than the applicant, there is an
exemption if disclosure would breach any of the Data Protection Principles.
There are also some special rules to be applied in cases where the personal data are about someone who has formally objected to their disclosure. The term, “third party data,” is used to describe personal information about someone other than the applicant.
Disclosure of information about a person other than the information seeker would be unlawful if:
• There would be a breach of confidence. It is likely to arise where
relatively sensitive information has been provided to an authority in the
expectation that it would not be disclosed. Examples include medical
information or personal financial details.
• There is law forbidding disclosure, for instance the Official Secrets Act.

The first principle requires personal data to be processed fairly and lawfully. In practice this will be the key issue when considering an application for third party data.

The concept of “fairness” is harder to define, although in practice it ought not
to be difficult to judge whether it would be unfair to someone to pass on their
information without consent. The sorts of questions which should be asked
include:
• Would the disclosure cause unnecessary or unjustified distress or
damage to the person who the information is about?
• Would the third party expect that his or her information might be
disclosed to others? Is disclosure incompatible with the purposes for
which it was obtained?
• Had the person been led to believe that his or her information would be
kept secret?
• Has the third party expressly refused consent to disclosure of the
information?
• Does the legitimate interest of a member of the public seeking
information about a public authority, including personal information,
outweigh the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the data
subject?

Globalization and the growth of electronic technologies have challenged the ability of states to ensure the privacy rights of their citizens. Many countries concerned about the protection of their citizens' personal information have adopted privacy laws and fair information practices.
In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to privacy. In 1981, the Council of Europe established a convention to guide the collection, storage and use of personal information, and the exchange of that information across international borders.
European law allows personal information to flow outside Europe only if there is an adequate level of protection in the receiving country.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a multinational trade organization to promote global trade and economic development, has drafted guidelines for the international trade in personal information. "Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data" addresses the international exchange of information, and suggests guidelines for the collection and exchange of such information. These guidelines were developed in 1980, and Canada signed them in 1984.
The guidelines recommend that information should be collected directly from the person concerned, and should only be used for the specific purpose for which it was collected. The guidelines also suggest that people be told how their personal data will be used, and that they be given the chance to access the information and to correct it, if necessary. In addition, the guidelines recommend that an independent data controller be appointed to see that privacy provisions are applied correctly.
It can be seen from the above discussion that ‘personal information’ is a sensitive issue. World over privacy of individuals is respected while deciding about sharing ‘personal information’ available with a public authority. While many countries have separate law to protect such data, India does not have such separate law. However our RTI Act prohibits unwarranted invasion of privacy. Therefore Sec 8(1)(j) of the Act should not be interpreted as if it deals with only information of one’s self only and the other Sections such as Secs 7 (7) and 11 only deal with the information of third parties other than the self. Therefore utmost care is to be taken while sharing personal data with the public. Privacy is to be respected and a balance is to be drawn between the public interest and private interest. This also requires that what constitutes public interest should be carefully decided with reference to the purpose for which a particular public authority is created and also with reference to the objective of the Act itself.







[1]Padma Balasubramanian, Information Commissioner cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_11012007_1.pdf

[2]cic.gov.in/CIC-orders/Decision_28082006_11.pdf

[3]cic.gov.in/CIC-orders/Decision_08022008_06.pdf

[4]cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_05032007_06.pdf.

[5]cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_29122006_15.pdf

[6]cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_03012007_9.pdf

[7] cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_21012008_03.pdf

[8]cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-07062008-04.pdf

[9] cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_10052007_02.pdf