The right to privacy and the right to information are both constitutionally recognised; adjudicating their conflict requires a proportionality test.

Q. The right to privacy and the right to information are both constitutionally recognised; adjudicating their conflict requires a proportionality test. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Both claims are constitutionally rooted: the right to information flows from Article 19(1)(a) and is operationalised by the RTI Act, 2005, while privacy was read into Article 21 in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017). Neither is absolute, so their clash demands structured balancing rather than a hierarchy of rights.

Constitutional recognition of both claims - The RTI Act's stated purpose is transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities, not discovery in private disputes [1] - Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information whose disclosure causes unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless a larger public interest justifies it — privacy is thus written into the transparency statute itself [1] - Puttaswamy located privacy in dignity and informational self-determination, giving it equal constitutional rank

Where the conflict arises - 8(1)(j) is the most-invoked exemption — over 30,000 times during 2005-2010, nearly 40% of all exemption claims [2] — inviting routine denial of legitimate accountability requests - Conversely the exemption can be diluted: the CIC's 2021 order directing disclosure of a husband's net taxable income to his estranged wife risked converting RTI into a private litigation tool [3] - The Delhi High Court (28 April 2026) set that order aside, holding income tax returns are personal information attracting no larger public interest [3]

Proportionality as the adjudicating test - Legitimate aim: a maintenance claim is a genuine access-to-justice interest, especially for economically dependent spouses - Least-restrictive means: Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) already mandates affidavits of income, assets and liabilities in all maintenance proceedings — a court-supervised route with evidentiary safeguards [4] - Balancing: because a less intrusive remedy existed, disclosure failed proportionality; the "larger public interest" proviso is itself the statutory proportionality clause

Proportionality therefore reconciles rather than ranks these rights, preserving RTI's accountability core while confining exemptions to demonstrated need. Clearer DoPT–CIC guidance on applying the public-interest override, backed by reasoned case-specific orders, would give both Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 their full constitutional measure.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 — official text, DoPT RTI Portal — purpose of the Act; Section 8(1)(j) personal-information exemption and larger public interest test 2. PRS Legislative Research, "RTI rejections" — Section 8(1)(j) invoked over 30,000 times during 2005-2010, ~40% of all exemption invocations 3. Delhi High Court — Kapil Agarwal v. CPIO, Income Tax Officer, Moradabad, W.P.(C) 8481/2021, order dated 28 April 2026 — ITR held personal information; CIC order of 22 July 2021 set aside for want of larger public interest 4. Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 — Supreme Court of India judgment (hosted by District & Sessions Court, Bundi) — mandatory affidavit of income, assets and liabilities in all maintenance proceedings