SC refuses stay on RTI amendments linked to DPDP Act

A. Issue in Brief

• The Supreme Court of India refused to stay amendments affecting the RTI framework made through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and DPDP Rules, but agreed to examine the balance between privacy and transparency.
• Petitioners argue that changes to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) dilute access to information by expanding the scope of “personal information” exemptions.
• The Court flagged the matter as involving competing fundamental rights requiring a constitutional balancing exercise.

B. What Changed? 

• Amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act: strengthens protection of “personal information,” limiting disclosure unless legally justified.
• Petitioners claim this creates a blanket-style restriction, weakening the earlier public interest override.
• Concern: Authorities may deny information citing privacy even in cases involving corruption, public office accountability, or misuse of public funds.

C. Constitutional Dimension

• Article 19(1)(a): RTI flows from freedom of speech and expression (right to know).
• Article 21: Right to privacy recognised as fundamental in Puttaswamy (2017).
• Core question: How to balance RTI (transparency) vs Privacy (data protection) when both are fundamental rights ?
• SC jurisprudence requires proportionality and necessity tests in such conflicts.

D. Governance Dimension

• RTI is a key pillar of accountable and participatory governance; dilution may reduce scrutiny over public authorities.
• Data protection law aims to build trust in the digital ecosystem and prevent misuse of personal data.
• Administrative challenge: PIOs (Public Information Officers) must now interpret data protection + RTI together, raising compliance complexity.

E. Democratic / Institutional Impact

• RTI has historically exposed corruption, ghost beneficiaries, and policy lapses.
• Over-broad privacy exemptions risk creating a “culture of secrecy”.
• At the same time, unchecked disclosure can violate informational privacy and dignity.

F. Ethical Dimension

• Ethical tension between transparency in public life vs protection of individual dignity.
• Principle of minimum necessary disclosure: reveal what serves public interest, protect what is purely private.
• Fairness issue: Public officials’ actions in official capacity warrant higher transparency threshold.

G. Key Concerns / Criticisms

• Possible over-classification of information as personal.
• Chilling effect on RTI activism and investigative journalism.
• Lack of clear operational guidelines for balancing tests.
• Risk of inconsistent decisions across authorities.

H. Way Forward

• Issue clear harmonisation guidelines clarifying when public interest overrides privacy.
• Define “personal information” narrowly for public officials in official roles.
• Capacity-building of PIOs on data protection–RTI interface.
• Develop a structured proportionality test checklist for disclosure decisions.
• Periodic parliamentary/judicial review to ensure RTI’s core is not eroded.

I. Exam Orientation

Prelims Pointers

• RTI derives from Article 19(1)(a).
• Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Puttaswamy).
• Section 8 of RTI Act lists exemptions from disclosure.
• DPDP Act 2023 governs processing of digital personal data.

Practice Question (15 Marks)

• “Data protection and transparency are both essential in a democracy but may conflict in practice.” Discuss how India should balance the Right to Information with the Right to Privacy.

---