DPDP Act and RTI: Balancing Privacy and Transparency

Context

The Supreme Court is examining constitutional challenges to the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, including Section 44(3), which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The petitions also raise concerns about the impact of the data-protection framework on investigative journalism and freedom of expression.

Section 44(3) was brought into force through a notification dated 13 November 2025.

The Two Legal Frameworks

The debate concerns the interaction between two important laws:

1. The RTI Act, 2005 promotes transparency and accountability by enabling citizens to access information held by public authorities, subject to specified exemptions.
2. The DPDP Act, 2023 establishes a framework for protecting digital personal data and regulating its processing.

The central issue is whether stronger protection of personal information could unduly restrict access to information necessary for public accountability.

Change Introduced by Section 44(3)

1. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act substituted the earlier Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. Before the amendment: Personal information could be withheld when it was unrelated to public activity or interest, or when disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The provision also permitted disclosure where the larger public interest justified it.
3. After the amendment: Section 8(1)(j) provides an exemption for information relating to personal information. The earlier conditions and the specific public-interest test contained in this clause were removed.
4. This has raised concerns that the personal-information exemption could become broader and restrict access to information relevant to public accountability.

Public Interest and the RTI Framework

1. The amendment does not eliminate every public-interest provision in the RTI Act. Section 8(2) continues to provide for disclosure where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests.
2. Therefore, an important issue before the Court is how the amended Section 8(1)(j) should operate alongside Section 8(2).
3. The case could determine how far personal-information protection can extend when the information also has significance for public scrutiny, corruption or misconduct involving public officials.

Investigative Journalism

The petitions also raise concerns about the effect of the DPDP framework on investigative journalism.

1. Investigative reporting may involve collecting, processing and retaining personal information.
2. The DPDP framework does not provide a general unrestricted exemption specifically for journalists.
3. Concerns have therefore been raised that data-protection requirements could create additional constraints on reporting involving personal information.
4. The Court has to consider these concerns without treating journalists as a separate category having unrestricted access to personal data.

The issue is significant because information may be personal in nature while also being relevant to matters of public interest.

Constitutional Dimensions

The case brings several constitutional principles together:

1. Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression, which provides the constitutional basis for the right to know.
2. Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty, under which the right to privacy has been recognised.
3. Freedom of the press: Essential for public scrutiny and democratic accountability.
4. Data protection: Necessary to safeguard individuals against misuse of personal information.

The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The present dispute therefore involves reconciling privacy with the democratic importance of transparency and access to information.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

The DPDP Act–RTI debate reflects a fundamental challenge of digital governance: protecting personal privacy without weakening democratic transparency. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could clarify the permissible limits of personal-information exemptions and the relationship between the right to know, right to privacy and freedom of expression. A balanced approach should protect genuine personal data while ensuring that privacy safeguards do not become an unnecessarily broad barrier to public scrutiny and accountability.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is the Supreme Court examining in the DPDP Act–RTI case?

Ans: The Court is examining constitutional challenges to the DPDP Act, 2023, including Section 44(3), which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The case involves the balance between privacy, transparency and freedom of expression.

Q2. What did Section 44(3) change in the RTI Act?

Ans: It substituted the earlier Section 8(1)(j) with an exemption covering information relating to personal information. The earlier conditions and the specific public-interest test within that clause were removed.

Q3. Does the RTI Act still contain a public-interest provision?

Ans: Yes. Section 8(2) continues to provide for disclosure where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests. Its relationship with the amended Section 8(1)(j) is an important issue in the case.

Q4. When did the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) take effect?

Ans: Section 44(3) was brought into force through the Central Government’s notification dated 13 November 2025.

Q5. Why is investigative journalism relevant to the case?

Ans: Investigative reporting may involve collecting and retaining personal information. The petitions raise concerns that data-protection requirements could create additional constraints on such reporting, particularly when the information has public-interest value.

Q6. Which constitutional rights are central to the debate?

Ans: The debate primarily involves the right to know linked with Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy under Article 21. It also concerns freedom of the press and government accountability.

Q7. Why is the case significant for governance?

Ans: The case could clarify how India should reconcile personal-data protection with transparency, accountability and the public’s right to know in an increasingly digital governance environment.