Understanding the RTI Act Amendment: Privacy vs. Transparency

Examining the implications of RTI Act changes on citizen's right to information and state accountability.

Gopi

•February 20, 2026•6 mins read

SC to Examine RTI Dilution by DPDP Act, Flags Constitutional Concerns

Not Started

1. Constitutional Context: RTI Amendment Referred to Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench, citing its “constitutional sensitivity.” This indicates that the issue concerns the interpretation of fundamental rights and the balance between competing constitutional values.

The Chief Justice of India observed that the Court may need to clarify the meaning of “personal information.” This reflects the central tension between the Right to Information (derived from Article 19(1)(a)) and the Right to Privacy (recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)).

The reference to a Constitution Bench signals that the matter has implications beyond statutory interpretation. It affects democratic accountability, administrative transparency, and the evolving data protection framework in India.

The constitutional challenge lies in balancing transparency and privacy—both fundamental to democracy. If this balance is not carefully defined, either state accountability may weaken or individual privacy may be compromised, affecting governance legitimacy.

2. Original Design of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

The RTI Act, 2005 was enacted to create an informed citizenry and promote transparency in governance. It aimed to reduce information asymmetry between citizens and the state, strengthening participatory democracy.

Section 8(1)(j) originally permitted denial of personal information only when:

It had no relation to public activity or public interest, or
Disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Importantly, it incorporated a “public interest override.” Even if information was personal, a Public Information Officer (PIO) could allow disclosure if larger public interest justified it. This ensured a case-by-case balancing mechanism rather than a blanket exemption.

In Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), the Supreme Court held that personal information should ordinarily remain private unless disclosure serves larger public interest, reinforcing this calibrated approach.

The original framework institutionalised proportionality: privacy was protected, but not at the cost of accountability. Removing this calibrated mechanism risks upsetting the balance that enabled RTI to function as a transparency tool.

3. DPDP Amendment: Nature of the Change

Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by removing the public interest override and prohibiting disclosure of “any information which relates to personal information.”

This shifts the framework from conditional exemption to a near-blanket prohibition. The phrase “any information which relates to personal information” significantly expands the scope of denial.

Key Change:

Removal of “public interest override”
Broader wording enabling rejection of RTI requests

Consequently, information relating to public officials, procurement processes, audit findings, or public expenditure could potentially be denied if classified as “personal information.”

The amendment alters the RTI regime from a transparency-first model with limited exemptions to a privacy-first model with broad denial powers. If interpreted expansively, it may dilute institutional accountability mechanisms.

4. “Legitimate Uses” Paradox and State-Citizen Asymmetry

Section 7 of the DPDP Act permits the State to process personal data without consent for certain legitimate uses. However, the RTI amendment prevents citizens from accessing personal information of public officials even where public interest exists.

This creates what has been described as a “legitimate uses” paradox: the State retains authority to collect and process personal data, but citizens face restrictions in seeking similar information for transparency purposes.

Over two decades, RTI has significantly reduced state-citizen information asymmetry, particularly benefiting marginalized sections who rely on transparency for accessing welfare entitlements and combating corruption.

Democratic governance requires reciprocal transparency. If the State can monitor citizens but citizens cannot scrutinise state action, the accountability architecture weakens, affecting inclusive development outcomes.

5. Implications for Press Freedom

One of the writ petitions argues that journalists collecting information for investigative reporting may be treated as “data fiduciaries” under the DPDP Act and its Rules.

Non-compliance may attract penalties up to ₹250 crore, creating significant legal and financial risk for media organisations.

Potential Impacts:

Chilling effect on investigative journalism
Risk-averse reporting and self-censorship
Reduced scrutiny of public institutions

The absence of explicit exemptions for journalism contrasts with exemptions provided to startups under the DPDP framework.

This situation raises concerns under Article 19(1)(a), which protects freedom of speech and expression, including press freedom as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Excessive regulatory uncertainty and high penalties may discourage investigative journalism. If media scrutiny diminishes, democratic oversight and public accountability may suffer.

6. Comparative Perspective: GDPR Model

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) attempts to balance privacy protection with transparency and journalistic freedom. It provides safeguards ensuring that data protection norms do not undermine accountability mechanisms.

The comparison highlights the importance of embedding proportionality and exemptions for journalism and public interest disclosures within data protection regimes.

Comparative Insight:

GDPR integrates privacy safeguards with transparency protections
Recognises journalistic exemptions

This suggests that data protection and transparency need not be mutually exclusive; institutional design can harmonise both objectives.

Global practice demonstrates that privacy and transparency can coexist through calibrated exemptions. Ignoring comparative lessons may lead to rigid frameworks that undermine either accountability or privacy.

7. Broader Governance Implications

The RTI Act has been a cornerstone of administrative reform in India. It has enhanced citizen oversight, reduced corruption opportunities, and empowered marginalized groups.

Diluting foundational provisions may:

Increase opacity in public procurement and expenditure
Limit scrutiny of public officials
Affect anti-corruption frameworks
Undermine trust in institutions

At the same time, privacy is an essential constitutional value in the digital age. The challenge lies in defining “personal information” narrowly enough to protect individuals while preventing misuse as a shield for maladministration.

The long-term health of democratic governance depends on maintaining equilibrium between privacy and transparency. Overcorrection in either direction risks weakening constitutional democracy.

Conclusion

The Constitution Bench’s interpretation of “personal information” and the scope of the RTI amendment will shape India’s transparency regime in the digital era. A principled reconciliation of privacy and accountability is essential to preserve both fundamental rights and effective governance. Ensuring this balance will determine whether India’s data protection framework strengthens democracy or inadvertently constrains it.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 originally struck a careful balance between individual privacy and public accountability. It allowed denial of personal information only if it had no relationship to public activity or interest, or if disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Crucially, it contained a “public interest override”, empowering Public Information Officers (PIOs) to disclose personal information if larger public interest justified it.

The amendment introduced through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 removes this override and broadly prohibits disclosure of “any information which relates to personal information.” This transforms a nuanced balancing clause into a near-blanket exemption. Consequently, information about public officials’ assets, procurement decisions, audit findings, or public expenditure may now be denied under the garb of privacy.

The conceptual shift is significant: from a transparency-first regime with limited privacy exceptions to a privacy-dominant framework that potentially undermines democratic oversight. The Supreme Court’s referral to a Constitution Bench underscores the constitutional stakes involved.

The RTI Act was enacted to reduce information asymmetry between the state and citizens, particularly benefiting marginalized groups seeking access to welfare entitlements. Over two decades, RTI applications exposed corruption in public distribution systems, irregularities in public works, and misuse of funds in schemes like MGNREGA.

By removing the public interest override, the amendment risks shielding public authorities from scrutiny. For instance, details about disciplinary proceedings against officials or contracts awarded to private firms may now be classified as personal information. This could dilute the principle that public office entails public accountability.

Democracy depends not only on elections but also on continuous transparency. Curtailing RTI weakens participatory governance and shifts power disproportionately toward the executive, thereby challenging the foundational constitutional value of accountability.

The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. Simultaneously, the RTI framework operationalizes Article 19(1)(a), the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to receive information. The DPDP amendment intensifies the tension between these two rights.

While protecting personal data is legitimate in the digital age, a blanket prohibition undermines proportionality. The 2019 Central Public Information Officer judgment held that personal information should remain private unless disclosure serves larger public interest. The amendment departs from this judicially evolved balance.

A constitutional approach requires harmonization, not hierarchy. Privacy should shield individuals from unwarranted intrusion, but it cannot become a tool to obscure public wrongdoing. The challenge lies in crafting a framework that applies the test of necessity and proportionality rather than adopting absolute exclusions.

Under the DPDP Act, journalists collecting and processing personal data could be classified as ‘data fiduciaries’. Non-compliance may attract penalties up to ₹250 crore. This creates a chilling effect, where fear of financial and legal repercussions discourages investigative reporting.

For example, investigations into asset disclosures of public officials, irregularities in public procurement, or conflicts of interest may involve accessing personal data. If such information is broadly exempted under amended RTI provisions, journalists may struggle to substantiate allegations.

In contrast, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) includes explicit safeguards for journalistic purposes, balancing privacy with freedom of expression. The absence of similar carve-outs in India could reduce media to disseminating official narratives rather than acting as a watchdog.

In this scenario, authorities must evaluate whether the information pertains to public activity financed by taxpayers. While travel details may involve personal data, the expenditure of public funds establishes a clear public interest dimension.

Under the original RTI framework, the public interest override would likely justify disclosure, especially if concerns of misuse arise. However, the amended provision may enable denial by categorizing such information as personal.

A constitutionally sound approach would apply the proportionality test: disclose financial and official aspects while redacting sensitive personal details. This case highlights the need for judicial clarity to prevent overbroad application of privacy exemptions and to preserve transparency in governance.

The Constitution Bench can adopt a harmonized interpretation grounded in constitutional morality. First, it may reaffirm that privacy and transparency are co-equal rights, neither absolute nor subordinate. Applying the doctrine of proportionality can ensure that restrictions on RTI are narrowly tailored.

Second, the Court could revive the spirit of the public interest override through judicial interpretation, clarifying what constitutes ‘personal information’ in a public office context. Distinguishing between purely private data and information linked to public duties would be crucial.

Finally, comparative jurisprudence such as GDPR safeguards for journalism may guide the Court. A balanced ruling would protect sensitive personal data while ensuring that RTI continues to function as a cornerstone of participatory democracy.