What Happened
- The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, through Section 44(3), has amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, removing the "public interest override" for disclosure of personal information
- Three Public Interest Litigations have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of this amendment — by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information, journalist Nitin Sethi, and digital news platform The Reporters' Collective (through Venkatesh Nayak)
- The Supreme Court has admitted the pleas, issued notice to the Centre, and referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench for hearing
- Over 120 Opposition INDIA bloc Members of Parliament have petitioned the Centre to repeal Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act
- The Court has declined to stay the amendment pending final adjudication
Static Topic Bridges
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 — Original Provision vs Amended Provision
The Right to Information Act, 2005 (effective 12 October 2005) established a framework for citizens to access information held by public authorities. Section 8 lists exemptions from disclosure. The original Section 8(1)(j) exempted personal information from disclosure only when it had "no relationship to any public activity or interest" or would cause "unwarranted invasion of privacy" — but critically included a public interest override allowing the Central/State Public Information Officer or appellate authority to disclose personal information if "the larger public interest justifies the disclosure."
- Original Section 8(1)(j): Exempted personal information unless the larger public interest justified disclosure — a carefully calibrated balancing test (proportionality principle)
- Amended Section 8(1)(j) (via DPDP Act Section 44(3)): Now reads simply "information which relates to personal information" — an absolute bar on disclosure, with no public interest override
- The amendment removes the PIO's discretion to perform a proportionality test between privacy and accountability
- Section 8(2) of the RTI Act contains a general public interest override for Section 8(1) exemptions — but Section 8(1)(j) as amended makes this moot for personal information
- The RTI Act was passed to give effect to the fundamental right to information flowing from Article 19(1)(a) — freedom of speech and expression
Connection to this news: The editorial highlights that this amendment creates a structural information asymmetry between the state and citizens, as personal information about public servants — assets, liabilities, conduct records — can now be categorically denied without any public interest assessment.
Right to Privacy — K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
The nine-judge Constitution Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) unanimously declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Court held that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against other legitimate state interests, including transparency. The Court laid down a three-fold test for any restriction on privacy: (1) legality — a law must exist; (2) legitimate aim — a legitimate state aim must be served; and (3) proportionality — the means must be proportionate to the objective.
- 9-judge bench, unanimous decision (24 August 2017) — overruled M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954, 8-judge bench) and Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1962, 6-judge bench) which had held privacy was not a fundamental right
- Privacy declared part of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and also linked to Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression) and Article 14 (equality)
- Three-fold test: legality, legitimate aim, proportionality — any restriction on privacy must satisfy all three
- The judgment explicitly noted that privacy must coexist with transparency and accountability in governance
- This case was the precursor to the DPDP Act, 2023
Connection to this news: The petitioners argue that Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act fails the proportionality test laid down in Puttaswamy — it creates an absolute bar on disclosing personal information rather than a proportionate balance between privacy and the public's right to know.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — Key Provisions
The DPDP Act, 2023, enacted on 11 August 2023 with rules notified on 14 November 2025, is India's first comprehensive data protection legislation. While primarily aimed at regulating the processing of digital personal data by both government and private entities, its Section 44 amends three existing laws, including the RTI Act.
- Applies to digital personal data processed within India and to processing outside India if related to offering goods/services in India
- Key concepts: Data Principal (individual whose data it is), Data Fiduciary (entity processing data), Consent Manager (registered intermediary)
- Data Protection Board of India: Adjudicatory body (not a regulator) established under Section 18 — quasi-judicial, not fully independent
- Section 44(3): Amends RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) — removes the public interest override for personal information
- Section 44(2): Amends IT Act, 2000 — omits Section 43A (compensation for data breaches)
- Penalties: Up to Rs 250 crore for data breaches; up to Rs 200 crore for non-compliance with children's data provisions
- Exemptions: Government agencies exempted on grounds of sovereignty, security, public order (Section 17)
Connection to this news: The constitutional challenge focuses specifically on Section 44(3) and whether Parliament, while enacting a data protection law, can simultaneously weaken an existing transparency law without adequate deliberation or a proportionality assessment.
Right to Information as a Fundamental Right — Judicial Evolution
The right to information is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but has been judicially derived as part of Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). The Supreme Court has progressively expanded this right through a series of landmark judgments, culminating in the enactment of the RTI Act, 2005.
- State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975): First recognised the right to know as part of free speech under Article 19(1)(a)
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): "Open government is the new democratic culture; secrecy is now combated with right to know"
- People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003): Right to information is a facet of Article 19(1)(a)
- RTI Act, 2005: Replaced the Freedom of Information Act, 2002; enacted to promote transparency and accountability in governance
- Section 4 of RTI Act mandates proactive (suo motu) disclosure by public authorities — this remains unamended
- RTI Act Amendment, 2019: Changed the tenure and salary of Information Commissioners from statutory prescription to Central Government discretion — also criticised as weakening RTI
Connection to this news: The Constitution Bench will need to reconcile the judicially recognised fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) with the legislatively created privacy framework under the DPDP Act, determining whether an absolute exemption for personal information passes constitutional muster.
Key Facts & Data
- RTI Act, 2005: Effective 12 October 2005; replaces Freedom of Information Act, 2002
- Original Section 8(1)(j): Personal information exempt unless "larger public interest justifies disclosure"
- DPDP Act, 2023: Enacted 11 August 2023; rules notified 14 November 2025
- Section 44(3) of DPDP Act: Amends Section 8(1)(j) — removes public interest override entirely
- Three PILs filed: by NCPRI (Venkatesh Nayak), journalist Nitin Sethi, and The Reporters' Collective
- Supreme Court: Admitted pleas, referred to five-judge Constitution Bench for hearing
- 120+ INDIA bloc MPs petitioned Centre to repeal Section 44(3)
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 — but subject to proportionality test