25 Feb 2026·Source: The Hindu

5 min

Polity & GovernanceSocial IssuesNEWS

Data Act Amendment: Dilution of Right to Information?

Analyzing the impact of the DPDP Act on RTI and transparency.

The Supreme Court of India is examining the constitutional validity of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025, after issuing a notice to the Central Government on petitions challenging them. The core contention is that Section 36 of the DPDP Act, along with Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, grants the Centre excessive authority over personal data, potentially weakening the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. These provisions empower the Central Government to demand information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries.

The petitioners, including The Reporters' Collective, journalist Nitin Sethi, RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak, and the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI), argue that the DPDP Act creates a 'blanket exemption' for disclosing personal information, thereby diluting the RTI Act. Specifically, Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, removing the balancing test that previously allowed the disclosure of personal information if it served a public activity or interest. The petitioners contend that this change violates Article 14 (right to equality), Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and Article 21 (right to life).

The Supreme Court acknowledged the complexity of the issue, noting that it touches upon the fundamental rights of both sides and may require some adjustments to strike a balance. While refusing to stay the challenged provisions, the court recognized the sensitivity of the matter. The Economic Survey 2026 has also expressed concerns about privacy and governance under the RTI Act, suggesting a re-examination of the Act.

This case is critical for India because it directly impacts the balance between citizens' right to information and the protection of personal data, with implications for transparency, accountability, and the exposure of corruption. This is relevant for UPSC exams, particularly GS Paper II (Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International relations).

Key Facts

The Supreme Court is reviewing the amendment to the RTI Act.

The amendment is part of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.

Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The amendment grants a blanket exemption to personal information without exceptions.

Critics argue this undermines transparency and accountability.

UPSC Exam Angles

GS Paper II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International relations

Interplay between fundamental rights (privacy) and statutory rights (RTI)

Potential for questions on the impact of technology on governance and transparency

In Simple Words

The government made a new rule about sharing personal info. It says that you can't get some personal details through the RTI Act. Some people are worried because this might hide things the government does.

India Angle

Imagine you want to know how much money your local government spent on a new road. If that information is considered 'personal,' it might be hidden. This affects everyone because it makes it harder to keep an eye on what officials are doing with public money.

For Instance

Think about when you apply for a government job. You might want to know the qualifications of other candidates to see if the process was fair. If that info is now 'personal,' you can't get it, making it harder to ensure fairness.

This new rule could make it harder to hold the government accountable. It touches your daily life because it affects how much you know about what's happening around you.

Less information means less power for the people.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, focusing on the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act's blanket exemption for personal information. The DPDP Act, enacted in 2023, provides a legal framework for protecting personal data shared with entities. However, Section 44(3) amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, granting a blanket exemption to personal information without exceptions, potentially undermining transparency and accountability.

Critics argue this amendment, made without explicit justification, could hinder access to crucial information, including procurement records and audit reports, previously accessible under RTI for probing corruption allegations. The Supreme Court's intervention aims to balance privacy needs with the public's right to information.

Expert Analysis

The ongoing debate surrounding the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and its impact on the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 highlights the complex interplay between privacy and transparency in a democratic society. Several key concepts are central to understanding this issue.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is a landmark legislation that empowers Indian citizens to seek information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability in governance. It stems from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and has been interpreted to include the right to know. The RTI Act treats disclosure as the norm, with Section 8 outlining narrowly defined exemptions under which information can be denied. However, the DPDP Act, 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, potentially creating a blanket exemption for personal information, regardless of public interest. This amendment is being challenged as it could significantly weaken the RTI Act's effectiveness in exposing corruption and promoting accountability.

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 aims to provide a legal framework for processing digital personal data in a manner that recognizes both the rights of individuals to protect their personal data and the need to process such data for lawful purposes. Section 36 of the DPDP Act, read with Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025, empowers the Central Government to call for information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries. Petitioners argue that this provision, combined with the amendment to the RTI Act, grants the government sweeping powers over personal data and undermines the transparency framework. The core issue is whether the DPDP Act's focus on data protection unduly restricts citizens' access to information under the RTI Act.

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 originally protected personal information where its disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless a larger public interest justified the disclosure. It also included a proviso stating that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any citizen. However, the DPDP Act, 2023 has amended this section, removing the balancing test that allowed for the disclosure of personal information in the public interest. Critics argue that this amendment tilts the balance decisively in favor of privacy at the cost of accountability, potentially hindering journalists and activists from exposing wrongdoing and corruption.

The Fundamental Right to Privacy was recognized by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case, which elevated privacy to a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. While the Puttaswamy judgment affirmed the importance of privacy, it also acknowledged that privacy is not an absolute right and can be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, or health. The current debate revolves around how to balance the fundamental right to privacy with the right to information, ensuring that privacy concerns do not unduly impede transparency and accountability in governance.

For UPSC aspirants, understanding the interplay between the RTI Act, the DPDP Act, and the fundamental right to privacy is crucial. Questions in both prelims and mains exams may focus on the constitutional and legal aspects of these legislations, their implications for governance and transparency, and the challenges in balancing competing rights. Aspirants should be prepared to analyze the potential impact of the DPDP Act on the effectiveness of the RTI Act and the broader implications for democratic accountability. The Economic Survey 2026's call for a re-examination of the RTI Act further underscores the importance of this topic for the UPSC exam.

Visual Insights

RTI Act and DPDP Act: Key Developments

Timeline of key events leading to the current Supreme Court review of the DPDP Act's impact on the RTI Act.

The RTI Act aimed to promote transparency, while the DPDP Act seeks to protect personal data. The Supreme Court is now balancing these two objectives.

2005Right to Information (RTI) Act enacted, empowering citizens to request information from public authorities.
2017Justice Srikrishna Committee formed to draft a data protection framework.
2023Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act enacted, aiming to regulate the processing of digital personal data.
2025Central Government notified the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, marking the full operationalisation of the DPDP Act, 2023.
2026Supreme Court begins hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the DPDP Act, particularly concerning its impact on the RTI Act.
2026Supreme Court refers petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the DPDP Act to a Constitution Bench.

More Information

Background

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. It empowers citizens to access information held by these authorities, fostering a more informed and participatory democracy. The Act is based on the principle that citizens have the right to know about the activities of the government and its agencies. However, the right to information is not absolute. Section 8 of the RTI Act specifies certain exemptions under which information can be denied, including information that would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, or that relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The recent amendments brought about by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, specifically targeting Section 8(1)(j), have raised concerns about the potential dilution of the RTI Act's effectiveness. The constitutional basis for the RTI Act lies in Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to include the right to know, as access to information is essential for citizens to form informed opinions and participate effectively in the democratic process. The ongoing debate centers on how to balance this fundamental right with the right to privacy, as enshrined in Article 21, and whether the DPDP Act unduly restricts access to information in the name of protecting personal data.

Latest Developments

In recent years, there has been increasing emphasis on data protection and privacy globally, leading to the enactment of laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. These developments have influenced the debate on data protection in India, with policymakers seeking to strike a balance between data privacy and the need for access to information. The government has maintained that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 is necessary to protect the privacy of individuals and prevent misuse of their personal data. It argues that the Act does not unduly restrict the right to information and that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency and accountability. The Economic Survey 2026 has also called for a careful re-examination of the RTI Act, suggesting that many countries restrict the disclosure of personal information. Looking ahead, the implementation of the DPDP Act and its impact on the RTI Act will be closely monitored. The Supreme Court's decision on the petitions challenging the DPDP Act will be crucial in determining the future of the right to information in India. The government may also consider further amendments to the RTI Act to address concerns about its potential misuse and to ensure a better balance between transparency and privacy.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How does the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 potentially weaken the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005?

The DPDP Act, 2023, particularly Section 36 and Rule 23, grants the Central Government broad powers to access personal data held by data fiduciaries and intermediaries. Critics argue that this creates a 'blanket exemption' for personal information, potentially hindering citizens' ability to access information under the RTI Act, especially information that might reveal government actions or policies.

2. What specific section of the RTI Act is being amended by the DPDP Act, and what's the core change?

Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The core change is that it grants a blanket exemption to personal information, without specifying exceptions. This means that even information previously accessible under RTI, if deemed personal, could now be withheld.

Exam Tip

Remember the sections: DPDP Act Section 44(3) amends RTI Act Section 8(1)(j). A common trap is to reverse them.

3. How does the Supreme Court's Puttaswamy judgment on the right to privacy relate to the current debate surrounding the DPDP Act and RTI?

The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The DPDP Act is framed as a law to protect this right. However, critics argue that the DPDP Act's broad exemptions for personal data under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act could undermine transparency and accountability, potentially conflicting with the principles of an open government.

4. What are the potential implications of the DPDP Act on investigative journalism and public interest disclosures?

If personal information is broadly exempted from RTI disclosures, it could become more difficult for journalists and activists to uncover wrongdoing or corruption involving public officials or private entities. This could hinder investigative journalism and limit the ability of citizens to hold power accountable.

5. What is the government's justification for the DPDP Act, and how does it address concerns about transparency?

The government argues that the DPDP Act is necessary to protect citizens' personal data and align India with global data protection standards like GDPR. The government likely believes that the Act strikes a balance between data privacy and the need for access to information, though critics disagree.

6. What specific fact related to the DPDP Act should I remember for the UPSC Prelims exam?

Focus on Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act and how it amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Understand that this amendment introduces a potentially broad exemption for personal information. Examiners might test your understanding of which Act amends which.

Exam Tip

Create a table comparing the original RTI Act provisions with the amended ones under the DPDP Act. This will help in quick revision.

7. If a Mains question asks me to 'Critically examine' the DPDP Act's impact on RTI, what key arguments should I include?

Your answer should include: * The potential for the DPDP Act to undermine transparency and accountability by creating broad exemptions for personal information. * The government's justification for the Act in terms of protecting privacy and aligning with global standards. * The concerns raised by activists and journalists about the impact on investigative journalism and public interest disclosures. * A balanced assessment, acknowledging both the need for data protection and the importance of access to information.

8. How does this situation in India compare to data protection laws like GDPR in the European Union?

While both the DPDP Act and GDPR aim to protect personal data, they differ in their approach to balancing privacy with access to information. GDPR includes specific exemptions for journalism and research, which may not be as clearly defined in the DPDP Act, potentially leading to stricter limitations on access to information in India.

9. What are the key arguments made by the petitioners challenging the DPDP Act in the Supreme Court?

The petitioners, including The Reporters' Collective, Nitin Sethi, Venkatesh Nayak, and NCPRI, argue that Section 36 of the DPDP Act and Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules grant excessive authority to the Central Government over personal data. They contend that this creates a 'blanket exemption' that undermines the RTI Act and limits citizens' right to information.

10. Will this issue primarily affect GS Paper 2 (Governance) or GS Paper 3 (Economy), and from what angle?

This issue primarily affects GS Paper 2 (Governance). The relevant angle is the impact of data protection laws on transparency, accountability, and the right to information. It touches upon the balance between privacy and openness in governance.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023: 1. It empowers the Central Government to call for information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries. 2. It amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, removing the balancing test for disclosing personal information in the public interest. 3. It was enacted in response to concerns raised in the Economic Survey 2026 about privacy and governance under the RTI Act. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A.1 and 2 only
B.2 and 3 only
C.1 and 3 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: D

All three statements are correct. The DPDP Act, 2023 does empower the Central Government to call for information from data fiduciaries and intermediaries (Statement 1). It amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, removing the balancing test for disclosing personal information in the public interest (Statement 2). The Economic Survey 2026 did express concerns about privacy and governance under the RTI Act, which influenced the enactment of the DPDP Act (Statement 3).

2. In the context of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding Section 8?

A.It specifies exemptions under which information can be denied.
B.It includes information that would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India as an exemption.
C.It allows for the disclosure of personal information if it serves a larger public interest.
D.The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 has expanded the scope of exemptions under Section 8.

Show Answer

Answer: D

Option D is NOT correct. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 has amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, potentially narrowing the scope of permissible disclosures, not expanding it. The other options are correct descriptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act.

3. Which of the following Articles of the Indian Constitution is most directly related to the Right to Information?

A.Article 14
B.Article 19(1)(a)
C.Article 21
D.Article 32

Show Answer

Answer: B

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to include the right to know, as access to information is essential for citizens to form informed opinions and participate effectively in the democratic process. Therefore, Article 19(1)(a) is most directly related to the Right to Information.