Delhi High Court Holds: PM CARES Fund Entitled to Privacy Under RTI Act, Even If Treated as a Public Authority

INTRODUCTION

The Delhi High Court pronounced the landmark judgment and has established a significant precedent regarding transparency and privacy law, by ruling that the PM CARES Fund is entitled to its privacy protections under the provisions of Right to Information (RTI) Act, despite its governmental status and control. This decision, which as pronounced on 13th January 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Hon’ble Justice Tejas Karia held that governmental management or control of an entity does not automatically dissociate it of statutory privacy rights available to third parties under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This judgment strikes clarity as to the relationship between public authority status and informational privacy and establishes that a juristic personality remains protected from disclosure obligations regardless of its public character.

BACKGROUND

The case originated from a Right to Information application filed by Mumbai-based RTI activist Girish Mittal seeking disclosure of documents and information submitted by the PM CARES Fund to the Income Tax Department in support of its exemption application. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has initially directed the Income Tax Department to provide the necessary, requested information. However, in January 2024, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the directive by ruling that Section 138 of the Income Tax Act triumphs over Section 22 of the RTI Act. Following this, Mittal appealed before the Division Bench and challenged the precedence given to the provisions of Income Tax Act over the RTI Act.

KEY POINTS

1. In this judgment, the Court clarified that the ruling being passed, does not concern the right to privacy as guaranteed under Article 21 of Part III of the Constitution of India but rather focuses on statutory privacy under the provision of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. This distinction is crucial in order to establish that even public entities have the right to enjoy statutory informational privacy.
2. The Bench highlighted that mere reasoning of an entity having its functions managed, administered, supervised and controlled by the government, does not take away its juristic personality and privacy entitlements and that the denial of such rights owing to the mere reasoning of it being the public authority was condemned.
3. The judgment rules that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act creates no discrepancies between public and private trusts, societies or bodies. Chief Justice Upadhyaya explained by stating “Whether a trust is public or private, whether it is a society running a school or football club, the privacy protections remain identical. Public or not makes no difference regarding third-party rights under the RTI Act.”
4. The Court upon consideration came to a conclusion that Section 11 of the RTI Act mandates certain requirements before disclosure of third-party information. The Public Information Officer must provide prior notice and opportunity to the concerned entity. This procedural safeguard applies uniformly across all the entities, irrespective of whether the third party is a public or private entity.
5. The Bench stressed that the IT Department was not the primary repository of information sought; the PM CARES Fund possessed the original documents. Subsequently, disclosure without the consent of the fund would amount to statutory privacy protections.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

This matter has been scheduled for further hearing on 10th February 2026. The Income Tax department is due to presented submissions on the aforementioned date. The counsel representing the RTI complainant has indicated his intention to challenge the preliminary observations of the Court and contains that government-established entities and charitable trusts shall not enjoy privacy protections. The final judgment will have substantial implications as to transparency regarding government entities and public trust funds.

CONCLUSION

This judgment by the Delhi High Court fundamentally redefines the expectations regarding the transparency of governmentally controlled bodies. By reassuring that the PM CARES Fund carries statutory privacy rights despite its governmental character, the Court clarified that Right to Information Act’s exceptions as to privacy apply in an equal manner across public and private entities. This judgment establishes that unlimited disclosure of all information is not required to establish public accountability but rather, statutory safeguards must protect third-party interests, even when third parties are established by the government. The judgment strikes a balance between the transparency objectives of RTI Act with recognition that juristic personalities, irrespective of their nature, deserve protection from unrestricted disclosure. The reasoning of the Court establishes that transparency and privacy are complementary to each other within the democratic governance frameworks.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY: KRISHNA KOUSHIK