Overview
The Supreme Court on 20 October 2026 directed a set of petitions challenging the amendment of RTI Act by the DPDP Act. The matter was sent to a Constitution Bench because of its "constitutional sensitivity". The Chief Justice hinted that the Court may need to define "personal information".
Key Developments
- The amendment removes the "public interest override" in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which previously allowed disclosure when larger public interest justified it.
- It imposes a blanket ban on any information that "relates to personal information", affecting requests on officials, procurement, audit reports and public spending.
- The Internet Freedom Foundation highlighted a paradox: the DPDP Act permits state processing of personal data without consent, yet the RTI amendment blocks citizens from using similar principles to seek transparency.
- Journalists may be treated as "data fiduciaries" under the DPDP Act, exposing them to fines up to ₹250 crore for non‑compliance, creating a chilling effect on investigative reporting.
Important Facts
The original Section 8(1)(j) allowed withholding of personal data only when it had no link to any public activity or when disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The amendment eliminates this nuance, effectively turning the RTI Act into a tool that cannot be used to scrutinise government actions that involve personal data.
Unlike the European Union’s GDPR, the DPDP Act does not provide comparable safeguards for journalism, even though it exempts startups.
The landmark judgment in Central Public Information Officer (2019) held that personal information should stay private unless its disclosure serves a larger public interest. This precedent is likely to guide the Constitution Bench.
Exam Relevance
Understanding this issue is crucial for GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑4 (Ethics) papers. It touches upon:
- Constitutional balance between the right to privacy (Article 21) and the right to information (Article 19(1)(a)).
- Role of the judiciary in interpreting statutes that affect democratic accountability.
- Impact of data‑protection laws on transparency, media freedom, and citizen‑state relations.
Way Forward
To safeguard the spirit of the RTI Act, the Court may:
- Re‑introduce a calibrated public‑interest test for personal data disclosures.
- Clarify the definition of "personal information" to distinguish between private citizens and public officials.
- Ensure that any data‑protection regime includes explicit exemptions for journalistic activity, aligning with international standards like the GDPR.
For aspirants, tracking the final judgment will provide insight into how India balances privacy with transparency—a core democratic challenge.