DPDP Act vs RTI: Supreme Court to Examine Whether Section 44(3) Dilutes the “Right to Know”
The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging the DPDP Act’s amendment to the RTI Act—especially Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023—to a five-judge Constitution Bench to resolve the tension between privacy and transparency. Petitioners argue that by changing RTI’s exemption for personal information and removing the earlier balancing test, the amendment could make it easier for public authorities to deny information that is crucial for accountability.
What is the dispute about?
At the centre is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act—the clause dealing with exemption of “personal information” from disclosure. The controversy is not about whether privacy matters (it does), but about whether the amended wording creates a blanket shield that can defeat legitimate public scrutiny.
The Court has flagged that the matter involves balancing competing fundamental rights and needs careful constitutional examination by a larger bench.
The statutory shift: Before vs After
Earlier RTI position (pre-amendment)
Under the earlier framework of RTI Section 8(1)(j), personal information could be denied only when disclosure had no relationship to any public activity/interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy; importantly, disclosure could still be ordered if “larger public interest” justified it (often called the public-interest override).
After DPDP Section 44(3) (post-amendment)
Legal analyses and reporting note that the DPDP amendment replaces the earlier detailed test with a broader exemption for “information which relates to personal information”, removing the explicit public-interest override and related safeguards. Critics say this shifts RTI from a balancing model (privacy vs accountability) to a model where “personal” becomes a near-automatic ground for refusal.
What concerns have been raised before the Supreme Court?
Petitioners and transparency advocates argue the amended text could allow:
- Blanket denials of information linked to public accountability by labelling it “personal,” even when it relates to public functions or public spending.
- A compliance-driven denial culture, because DPDP creates a strong privacy-compliance environment and officials may fear consequences of disclosure.
- Reduced transparency in welfare delivery and governance outcomes, where identifying beneficiaries or tracking decisions may require accessing data that authorities could now characterise as personal.
(These are arguments in the case; the Constitution Bench will determine the legal position.)
What the Supreme Court has done so far (status as of mid-Feb 2026)
A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant (as reported) referred the matter to a larger Bench, observing that “some creases” need to be ironed out, including clearly laying down what counts as “personal information.” The Court also indicated it would not stay the DPDP framework through an interim order while the matter is pending, meaning the amended regime continues for now.
Why this case is important
This dispute goes to the heart of how India balances two constitutional values:
- Transparency / right to know (commonly linked to Article 19(1)(a) in RTI jurisprudence), and
- Privacy (recognised as part of Article 21).
The Constitution Bench’s eventual ruling may clarify the definition of “personal information” in RTI contexts and set guardrails so that privacy protection does not unintentionally become a tool to block legitimate disclosure.
UPSC relevance
- GS 2 (Polity/Governance): Transparency vs privacy—how Parliament’s amendments can reshape RTI’s disclosure architecture.
- GS 2 (Judiciary/Constitution): Constitution Bench reference; balancing competing fundamental rights (Article 19(1)(a) vs Article 21).
- GS 2 (Accountability): Implications for citizens’ oversight of public authorities and administrative discretion in information denial.
- Prelims: DPDP Act 2023, Section 44(3); RTI Act 2005, Section 8(1)(j); “public interest override”; Constitution Bench.
FAQs
Q1. What is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act controversy?
It concerns the DPDP Act’s amendment to RTI Section 8(1)(j), with petitioners arguing it removes the earlier public-interest balancing test for disclosure of personal information.
Q2. What has the Supreme Court done in the matter?
The Supreme Court has referred the petitions to a five-judge Constitution Bench and has not granted an interim stay on the amended regime.
Q3. Why does “public interest override” matter in RTI?
It allowed disclosure of some personal information when a competent RTI authority found that larger public interest justified disclosure, balancing transparency with privacy.
Q4. What is the key legal question likely to be before the Constitution Bench?
How to define “personal information” for RTI purposes and how to balance privacy under Article 21 with transparency/right to know principles linked to Article 19(1)(a).
Q5. Does the referral mean the amendment is struck down?
No. A referral only means the Court found the constitutional questions significant enough for a larger bench; the amendment continues to operate until the Court decides otherwise.
