New Delhi: Emphasising the importance of balancing competing interests, the Supreme Court Monday refused to stay the amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act made through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which bars the disclosure of personal information even on grounds of larger public interest.
The Act has been challenged for amending Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act to allow denial of personal information, even when a larger public interest is cited.
Prior to November 2025, Section 8 of the RTI Act exempted certain information from public disclosure, such as information which could prejudice India’s sovereignty or integrity or information which cannot be disclosed due to orders passed by courts or tribunals, among others.
Specifically, Section 8(1)(j) prevented the disclosure of such information which related to personal information, and disclosing which did not impact public interest or activity. The only exception to this was a “larger public interest” at play, which justified the disclosure of such information.
However, in the wake of the recent amendment to Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which quietly removed this “larger public interest” rider, and essentially, shielded the disclosure of private information, even in public interest, three different pleas, filed by Reporters’ Collective, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) and RTI expert Venkatesh Nayak, have come before the SC challenging the DPDP provisions, and seeking a stay on the recent amendment.
A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, after taking note of the various pleas filed before it, remarked, “We will have to iron out the creases and lay down what personal information is.”
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, said the matter will have to be taken up by a larger bench as it involves complex issues and competing interests, and said, “The matter will be decided at the earliest by a larger bench as decided by the CJI.” The court listed the matter for hearing in March.
The court also issued a notice on a plea filed by Reporters’ Collective and others, challenging provisions of the DPDP Act, which according to the petitioners amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act by effectively “diluting and attacking” the provisions of the RTI Act.
Why the DPDP Act is under challenge
The petitioners challenged Sections 44(3), 17(1)(c), 17(2), 33(1) and 36 of the DPDP Act, along with Rules 17 and 23(2) of the DPDP 2025, saying that these violate the provisions of the Indian Constitution.
Section 44(3) allows the government to exempt certain entities from disclosing personal information, even if public interest is involved, while the other provisions relate to exemptions, penalties imposed under the Act, and the Centre’s power to call for information, from any third party or data fiduciary, respectively.
These provisions violate the citizens’ right to information and their right to know, which is part of the guarantees under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, which relate to the fundamental rights to free speech and life, respectively, and has been upheld in PUCL vs Union of India (2003) and several other rulings, the pleas argued.
Pointing to the constitutional principle and norm that information about public functionaries and duties must be shared in the interests of transparency, and ensuring open governance, the pleas said while that while enacting the RTI Act, Parliament made provisions for “mandatory voluntary disclosure” under Section 4(1)(b) to be made by public authorities to give effect to the citizens’ Right to Information.
What the RTI Act exempts
Broadly, Section 8 of the RTI Act exempts certain kinds of information from being disclosed, including information that is prejudicial to the country’s sovereignty, integrity, or if its disclosure has been prohibited by a court order.
Other kinds of information which cannot be disclosed is information received in confidence, from foreign governments or information protected by parliamentary privilege, or even information which could endanger the life or physical safety of someone else, among others.
Section 8(1)(j) states that personal information, which has “no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual” cannot be disclosed too. However, it allows such personal information to be disclosed in larger public interest.
The plea points out that the RTI Act has safeguards in place and specifies that the onus rests on the public information officer to deny the request for such information. But despite this, the pleas argued, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has now been stripped of the three-pronged test which it originally contained. The triple test involved three considerations: Public activity, unwarranted invasion, and overriding mandatory public interests to facilitate disclosure.
Rather, the RTI Act now “operates as a blanket ban on the obligation to disclose personal information”, the plea states. The plea also sought to strike down Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, since it places an unreasonable restriction on free speech and expression, and argues that privacy is not a fundamental right that can be made available to the government.
Further, the plea said that the right to equality of citizens is also being violated on the ground that privacy of public functionaries is being equated with that of ordinary citizens. It also added that two decades of transparency in the life of public authorities should not be reversed into an “era of dark opacity”.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)