20 Feb 2026 : Privacy and transparency

Article 1: Privacy and transparency

Why in news: The Supreme Court has referred challenges to the RTI amendment under the DPDP Act to a Constitution Bench, citing constitutional concerns over transparency, privacy, and public interest.

Key Details

• The Supreme Court of India has referred the challenge to the RTI amendment under the DPDP Act, 2023 to a Constitution Bench, calling it constitutionally sensitive.
• The original Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 allowed denial of personal information but included a crucial public interest override.
• The amendment removes this override and bars disclosure of any information relating to personal data, creating a broad exemption.
• This creates a paradox: the State can process citizens’ data, but citizens face limits in scrutinising the State.
• The change may cause a chilling effect on journalism and weaken transparency and accountability.

Reference to Constitution Bench

• On Monday, the Supreme Court of India referred petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 to a Constitution Bench, citing its “constitutional sensitivity.”
• The Chief Justice of India observed that the Court may need to clarify the scope of the term “personal information.”
• The issue raises significant concerns regarding the balance between transparency and privacy.

Original Objective of the RTI Act, 2005

• The RTI Act was enacted to:
  • Promote an informed citizenry
  • Ensure government accountability
  • Strengthen democratic governance
• It aimed to reduce information asymmetry between the State and citizens.
• Over nearly two decades, it has become a key instrument of public oversight, especially for marginalised groups.

Nature of Section 8(1)(j) Before Amendment

• Originally, Section 8(1)(j) allowed denial of information only if:
  • It had no relation to public activity or public interest, or
  • Its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
• Importantly, it contained a “public interest override”:
  • Information could still be disclosed if the Public Information Officer determined that larger public interest justified it.
• This ensured a balanced approach between privacy and transparency.

Impact of the DPDP Amendment

• The DPDP amendment removes the public interest override.
• It prohibits disclosure of “any information which relates to personal information”, effectively creating a blanket exemption.
• This change allows authorities to reject RTI requests related to:
  • Public officials’ records
  • Procurement details
  • Audit reports
  • Public expenditure
• Critics argue this significantly weakens the transparency framework of the RTI Act.

“Legitimate Uses” Paradox

• The Internet Freedom Foundation has highlighted a contradiction:
  • Section 7 of the DPDP Act allows the State to process personal data without consent under “legitimate uses.”
  • However, citizens are denied similar latitude when seeking information under RTI.
• This creates an imbalance:
  • The State can monitor citizens,
  • But citizens face barriers in scrutinising the State.

Chilling Effect on Journalism

• As argued by The Reporters’ Collective in a writ petition:
  • Journalists collecting information for investigative reporting may be treated as “data fiduciaries” under the DPDP framework.
• Non-compliance may attract penalties up to ₹250 crore.
• This could:
  • Discourage investigative journalism
  • Reduce media functioning to publishing official statements
• Notably:
  • The DPDP Act provides exemptions to startups,
  • But does not extend similar safeguards to journalism.
• This contrasts with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which attempts to balance privacy protection with freedom of expression and transparency.

Judicial Precedent and Constitutional Considerations

• The Constitution Bench may rely on Central Public Information Officer (2019), where the Court held:
  • Personal information must generally remain private,
  • Unless disclosure is warranted in the larger public interest.
• The case reaffirmed that privacy and transparency must be harmonised, not treated as mutually exclusive.

Democratic Significance

• Over the past two decades, RTI has:
  • Reduced state-citizen information asymmetry
  • Empowered citizens, including the poor
  • Strengthened participatory governance
• Diluting its core safeguards risks weakening accountable governance.
• Protecting the integrity of the RTI framework remains essential for a responsive and transparent democracy.

Conclusion

The constitutional challenge to the RTI amendment presents a critical moment for balancing privacy and transparencyin India’s democracy. While data protection is essential, diluting the public interest safeguard risks weakening accountability. The Constitution Bench must harmonise the right to information with the right to privacy, ensuring that governance remains transparent, responsive, and consistent with constitutional values.

Descriptive question:

Q. Analyse the constitutional implications of the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the DPDP Act, 2023. How does it affect the balance between the right to privacy and the right to information in India? (15 marks, 250 words)