"The right to privacy and the right to information are both constitutionally recognised; adjudicating their conflict requires a proportionality test." Discuss with reference to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and recent judicial pronouncements.

Both rights flow from the same constitutional source: information from Article 19(1)(a) free speech, privacy from Article 21 as affirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) [1]. Since neither is absolute, their clash is resolved not by hierarchy but by proportionality — and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is the statute's own balancing device.

Section 8(1)(j) as a built-in proportionality test

• Exempts personal information with no relation to public activity, or causing unwarranted invasion of privacy [2].
• Crucially a conditional, not absolute, bar — disclosure is permitted where larger public interest outweighs privacy [2].
• Its centrality is empirical: invoked over 30,000 times during 2005-2010, nearly 40% of all exemption claims, the most-used ground [3].

Recent judicial application

• The Delhi High Court (April 2026) set aside a 2021 CIC order and barred disclosure of a husband's income tax returns to his estranged wife, holding ITRs are personal information absent larger public interest [4].
• The reasoning is proportionate, not privacy-absolutist: RTI targets transparency in public authorities, and a matrimonial maintenance claim is a private adversarial dispute, so the means chosen were not the least-restrictive route to the legitimate aim.
• The Court pointed to a less intrusive alternative — Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), where the Supreme Court mandated affidavits of assets, income and liabilities by both parties in all maintenance proceedings [5].

Where the balance still strains

• Denying access can burden access to justice for economically dependent spouses who lack financial records.
• The court-supervised affidavit route answers this with cross-examination and evidentiary safeguards that RTI lacks [5].
• CIC orders remain reviewable by High Courts under Article 226, keeping the balancing judicially anchored.

Proportionality thus converts a rights conflict into a calibrated inquiry — legitimate aim, necessity, least intrusive means. Clearer DoPT and CIC guidance on applying Section 8(1)(j) in personal-dispute contexts would reduce inconsistency, ensuring transparency serves accountability while informational self-determination remains secure.