IFF: New Delhi: Wednesday, 5th March 2025.
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act under the DPDP Act, 2023 undermines transparency by allowing broad denial of information under the guise of privacy. IFF has joined a civil society campaign demanding its rollback to protect the Right to Information.
The Internet Freedom
Foundation (IFF) has joined the National Campaign for People’s Right to
Information (NCPRI) and other prominent civil society organizations, such as
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), Common Cause, and SNS, in campaigning
against the amendment to section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act through section 44(3)
of the DPDP Act, 2023. This collective movement aims to protect the Right to
Information from being compromised by the weaponising of data protection.
Why should you care?
The amendment to section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”), introduced through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, presents a serious threat to the core principles of transparency and accountability that the RTI Act was designed to uphold. This amendment is a significant alteration that cripples the RTI Act’s role as a vital tool for public oversight. By imposing a blanket ban on the disclosure of personal information without even defining what constitutes "personal information", this amendment undermines the RTI Act’s primary purpose and makes it ineffective to hold government institutions accountable and combat corruption. M. Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner, while expressing has, stated, “Unfortunately, the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) under Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act creates a serious fear that it will turn the RTI into a 'Right to Denial of Information.' Authorities will use it as an excuse to withhold critical information under the guise of privacy and protection."
The RTI Act’s balanced approach to privacy
In its original form, section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, allowed the withholding of personal information if its disclosure was unrelated to any public activity or interest or would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, this restriction was subject to an important safeguard: if the Central Public Information Officer (“CPIO”), the State Public Information Officer (“SPIO”), or the appellate authority determined that disclosing the information served a larger public interest, it could still be made available. Additionally, a proviso ensured that any information accessible to Parliament or a State Legislature could not be denied to the public, reinforcing the Act’s commitment to transparency.
The existing provision
struck a balance between protecting personal privacy and ensuring public
accountability. Further safeguards were embedded in Section 8(2), which allowed
disclosure when public interest outweighed privacy concerns under the OfficialSecrets Act 1923, and Section 8(3), which mandated the disclosure of
information older than 20 years.
The DPDPA’s attack on transparency
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (“DPDP Act”) rushed without proper public consultation and introduced a significant change to the RTI Act. Section 44 of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act that allows government bodies to withhold “information which relates to personal information,” with no consideration for the public interest or any other exception. This amendment removes the balancing test between privacy and public interest that was previously in place and gives government bodies broad discretion to withhold personal data even when its disclosure is essential for public scrutiny, transparency, or accountability.
Former Chief Information
Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, in his explanation of the amendment, highlighted
the potential consequences: “One of the primary objectives of the RTI Act is to
combat corruption. It’s frequently used to investigate issues like fraudulent
certificates and degrees held by officials, all of which are considered
personal information. If this amendment is passed, it would effectively shield
the government from scrutiny, allowing those in power to conceal arbitrary,
corrupt, or improper actions under the guise of protecting personal
information.”
Additionally, the vague definition of "personal information" allows authorities to arbitrarily deny RTI requests, and the amendments threaten previously public data, such as electoral rolls or policy records, by classifying them as private. The DPDP Act risks creating a new version of the Official Secrets Act, where officials can hide essential governance information under the guise of privacy protection. Dr. Amar Patnaik, former Rajya Sabha MP and founder of A&N Legal Solutions, has raised concerns about Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, noting that it fails to define "personal information" and conflates it with "information" in the RTI Act. He emphasized that "data" and "information" are not the same in tech terms, and if Section 44(3) prevents the disclosure of personal information without considering public interest, it would severely weaken the RTI Act’s purpose. He criticized MeitY for framing privacy and transparency as opposing forces.
A broader stab at democratic accountability
This amendment poses a serious risk not only to RTI activists but also to journalists, researchers, elected representatives, and concerned citizens, who risk first the denial of information, and also a potential for heavy penalties under the DPDP Act. In response to this grave development, a preliminary meeting was conducted on February 20, 2025, to launch a joint campaign demanding the immediate rollback of this amendment. Organized by Common Cause and Nikhil Dey, with the support of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), MKSS, SNS India, IFF, and other civil society organizations, the meeting marked the beginning of a united movement to protect the RTI Act. An online meeting was also followed on February 26, 2025, to formally launch the campaign, gather support, and plan for further actions. The campaign is now ongoing, both online and offline, with the hope of ensuring that the right to information remains safeguarded.
Previously also, IFF, other organisations and individuals were engaged in efforts to uphold both the right to information (RTI) and the right to privacy (RTP), including a 2018 workshop where civil society groups affirmed that privacy and transparency are complementary rights and called for a strong data protection law without weakening the RTI Act. We also opposed the Justice Srikrishna Committee’s proposed amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in the 2018 Data Protection Bill, highlighting how they would weaken transparency and accountability.
Privacy and Transparency are constitutional siblings
The right to information and the right to privacy are often perceived as opposing forces, but they are, in law, siblings of a fundamental rights framework, both essential for a functioning democracy. These rights stem from among other provisions under Part III of the Constitution of India and are recognized judicially and protected legislatively. Access to information enables citizens to hold governments accountable, uncover corruption, and ensure the responsible use of public resources, while privacy safeguards individuals from unjustified invasions into their personal lives, protecting them from surveillance or exploitation. Through judicial interpretation, the Indian judiciary has consistently stressed that these rights should not be seen in opposition but must be balanced to advance transparency and government accountability.
The landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union ofIndia (2017) WP (C) No. 494 of 2012 reaffirmed that privacy and transparency are complementary rights that must be balanced within India’s constitutional framework. This principle has been consistently upheld by courts in cases dealing with the intersection of the Right to Privacy and the Right to Information. Even prior to this decision several High Courts and the Supreme Court have empahsised on the need for complementarity. In Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State Of Maharashtra,AIR 2007 BOM 121, the Bombay High Court ruled that while privacy is a fundamental right, it can be overridden by significant public interest, particularly in cases involving public figures or government accountability under the RTI Act. The Court held that the RTI Act, as central legislation, takes precedence over subordinate laws, ensuring that transparency remains paramount in public life.
Similarly, in Vijay Prakash Vs. Union of India & Ors W.P. (C) No. 803 of 2009, the Delhi High Court emphasized that privacy protections under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act are not absolute and must be balanced against the need for transparency and accountability, especially when public interest is involved. A jarring note to access to information came through the Girish R. Deshpande v. CIC, 2012 AIR SCW 5865 judgement, where the Supreme Court denied access to personal information, ruling that no larger public interest justified its disclosure in that particular case. The Court broadly defined personal information to include service records, assets, liabilities, and financial details of public servants. However, even in this decision while prioritizing privacy, the judgment still upheld an important safeguard that such information could be disclosed if a compelling public interest was demonstrated. This ensured that transparency was not entirely compromised, even as the Court leaned toward protecting individual privacy. All these precedents have been swept aside due to the statutory changes with the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act under the DPDP Act.
A departure from best practices
Globally, we have seen how these two rights can complement each other. Countries like Ireland, Mexico, Slovenia, and the UK have developed data protection laws that allow both privacy and transparency to coexist. For example, Ireland’s RTI laws allow personal information to be withheld but only when it meets specific criteria such as the risk of harm or a defined public interest. Similarly, in the UK, data protection exemptions within the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) require a nuanced balance between privacy and the public’s right to know.
The General Data ProtectionRegulation (“GDPR”) in the European Union provides another model for balancing privacy and access to information. For instance, specifically for journalists, Article 85 of the GDPR recognizes that privacy protections must be reconciled with the right to access information. Unlike the DPDP Act, the GDPR provides clear exemptions for journalistic and public interest disclosures, ensuring that freedom of information is not overshadowed by privacy concerns. This approach, which prioritizes public interest alongside privacy protection, ensures both rights can function harmoniously without one undermining the other. Ultimately, privacy and transparency are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are complementary. The amendment to the RTI Act under the DPDP Act disrupts this crucial balance, potentially erodes citizens’ ability to hold the government accountable and diminishes the public’s right to know. By undermining the principles set forth in Puttaswamy, the DPDP Act threatens the very foundation of democratic accountability.
Rollback the Amendments to Section 8(1)(j)
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 under the DPDP Act, 2023 is a direct assault on transparency and accountability which threatens the fundamental right to information. We demand an immediate rollback of this amendment and urge the government not to operationalize Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023. The Internet Freedom Foundation stands firmly in support of this campaign and calls on all citizens, activists, and organizations to join us in protecting the RTI Act. Sign thispetition and raise your voice against the authoritarian amendment to RTI Act,2005.
Important documents:
Right to Information Act, 2005 (Link)
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Link)
Signature Petition to Demand Roll Back of Amendments made to the RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (Link)
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act under the DPDP Act, 2023 undermines transparency by allowing broad denial of information under the guise of privacy. IFF has joined a civil society campaign demanding its rollback to protect the Right to Information.
Why should you care?
The amendment to section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”), introduced through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, presents a serious threat to the core principles of transparency and accountability that the RTI Act was designed to uphold. This amendment is a significant alteration that cripples the RTI Act’s role as a vital tool for public oversight. By imposing a blanket ban on the disclosure of personal information without even defining what constitutes "personal information", this amendment undermines the RTI Act’s primary purpose and makes it ineffective to hold government institutions accountable and combat corruption. M. Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner, while expressing has, stated, “Unfortunately, the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) under Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act creates a serious fear that it will turn the RTI into a 'Right to Denial of Information.' Authorities will use it as an excuse to withhold critical information under the guise of privacy and protection."
The RTI Act’s balanced approach to privacy
In its original form, section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, allowed the withholding of personal information if its disclosure was unrelated to any public activity or interest or would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, this restriction was subject to an important safeguard: if the Central Public Information Officer (“CPIO”), the State Public Information Officer (“SPIO”), or the appellate authority determined that disclosing the information served a larger public interest, it could still be made available. Additionally, a proviso ensured that any information accessible to Parliament or a State Legislature could not be denied to the public, reinforcing the Act’s commitment to transparency.
The DPDPA’s attack on transparency
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (“DPDP Act”) rushed without proper public consultation and introduced a significant change to the RTI Act. Section 44 of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act that allows government bodies to withhold “information which relates to personal information,” with no consideration for the public interest or any other exception. This amendment removes the balancing test between privacy and public interest that was previously in place and gives government bodies broad discretion to withhold personal data even when its disclosure is essential for public scrutiny, transparency, or accountability.
Additionally, the vague definition of "personal information" allows authorities to arbitrarily deny RTI requests, and the amendments threaten previously public data, such as electoral rolls or policy records, by classifying them as private. The DPDP Act risks creating a new version of the Official Secrets Act, where officials can hide essential governance information under the guise of privacy protection. Dr. Amar Patnaik, former Rajya Sabha MP and founder of A&N Legal Solutions, has raised concerns about Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, noting that it fails to define "personal information" and conflates it with "information" in the RTI Act. He emphasized that "data" and "information" are not the same in tech terms, and if Section 44(3) prevents the disclosure of personal information without considering public interest, it would severely weaken the RTI Act’s purpose. He criticized MeitY for framing privacy and transparency as opposing forces.
A broader stab at democratic accountability
This amendment poses a serious risk not only to RTI activists but also to journalists, researchers, elected representatives, and concerned citizens, who risk first the denial of information, and also a potential for heavy penalties under the DPDP Act. In response to this grave development, a preliminary meeting was conducted on February 20, 2025, to launch a joint campaign demanding the immediate rollback of this amendment. Organized by Common Cause and Nikhil Dey, with the support of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), MKSS, SNS India, IFF, and other civil society organizations, the meeting marked the beginning of a united movement to protect the RTI Act. An online meeting was also followed on February 26, 2025, to formally launch the campaign, gather support, and plan for further actions. The campaign is now ongoing, both online and offline, with the hope of ensuring that the right to information remains safeguarded.
Previously also, IFF, other organisations and individuals were engaged in efforts to uphold both the right to information (RTI) and the right to privacy (RTP), including a 2018 workshop where civil society groups affirmed that privacy and transparency are complementary rights and called for a strong data protection law without weakening the RTI Act. We also opposed the Justice Srikrishna Committee’s proposed amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in the 2018 Data Protection Bill, highlighting how they would weaken transparency and accountability.
Privacy and Transparency are constitutional siblings
The right to information and the right to privacy are often perceived as opposing forces, but they are, in law, siblings of a fundamental rights framework, both essential for a functioning democracy. These rights stem from among other provisions under Part III of the Constitution of India and are recognized judicially and protected legislatively. Access to information enables citizens to hold governments accountable, uncover corruption, and ensure the responsible use of public resources, while privacy safeguards individuals from unjustified invasions into their personal lives, protecting them from surveillance or exploitation. Through judicial interpretation, the Indian judiciary has consistently stressed that these rights should not be seen in opposition but must be balanced to advance transparency and government accountability.
The landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union ofIndia (2017) WP (C) No. 494 of 2012 reaffirmed that privacy and transparency are complementary rights that must be balanced within India’s constitutional framework. This principle has been consistently upheld by courts in cases dealing with the intersection of the Right to Privacy and the Right to Information. Even prior to this decision several High Courts and the Supreme Court have empahsised on the need for complementarity. In Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State Of Maharashtra,AIR 2007 BOM 121, the Bombay High Court ruled that while privacy is a fundamental right, it can be overridden by significant public interest, particularly in cases involving public figures or government accountability under the RTI Act. The Court held that the RTI Act, as central legislation, takes precedence over subordinate laws, ensuring that transparency remains paramount in public life.
Similarly, in Vijay Prakash Vs. Union of India & Ors W.P. (C) No. 803 of 2009, the Delhi High Court emphasized that privacy protections under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act are not absolute and must be balanced against the need for transparency and accountability, especially when public interest is involved. A jarring note to access to information came through the Girish R. Deshpande v. CIC, 2012 AIR SCW 5865 judgement, where the Supreme Court denied access to personal information, ruling that no larger public interest justified its disclosure in that particular case. The Court broadly defined personal information to include service records, assets, liabilities, and financial details of public servants. However, even in this decision while prioritizing privacy, the judgment still upheld an important safeguard that such information could be disclosed if a compelling public interest was demonstrated. This ensured that transparency was not entirely compromised, even as the Court leaned toward protecting individual privacy. All these precedents have been swept aside due to the statutory changes with the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act under the DPDP Act.
A departure from best practices
Globally, we have seen how these two rights can complement each other. Countries like Ireland, Mexico, Slovenia, and the UK have developed data protection laws that allow both privacy and transparency to coexist. For example, Ireland’s RTI laws allow personal information to be withheld but only when it meets specific criteria such as the risk of harm or a defined public interest. Similarly, in the UK, data protection exemptions within the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) require a nuanced balance between privacy and the public’s right to know.
The General Data ProtectionRegulation (“GDPR”) in the European Union provides another model for balancing privacy and access to information. For instance, specifically for journalists, Article 85 of the GDPR recognizes that privacy protections must be reconciled with the right to access information. Unlike the DPDP Act, the GDPR provides clear exemptions for journalistic and public interest disclosures, ensuring that freedom of information is not overshadowed by privacy concerns. This approach, which prioritizes public interest alongside privacy protection, ensures both rights can function harmoniously without one undermining the other. Ultimately, privacy and transparency are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are complementary. The amendment to the RTI Act under the DPDP Act disrupts this crucial balance, potentially erodes citizens’ ability to hold the government accountable and diminishes the public’s right to know. By undermining the principles set forth in Puttaswamy, the DPDP Act threatens the very foundation of democratic accountability.
Rollback the Amendments to Section 8(1)(j)
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 under the DPDP Act, 2023 is a direct assault on transparency and accountability which threatens the fundamental right to information. We demand an immediate rollback of this amendment and urge the government not to operationalize Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023. The Internet Freedom Foundation stands firmly in support of this campaign and calls on all citizens, activists, and organizations to join us in protecting the RTI Act. Sign thispetition and raise your voice against the authoritarian amendment to RTI Act,2005.
Important documents:
Right to Information Act, 2005 (Link)
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Link)
Signature Petition to Demand Roll Back of Amendments made to the RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (Link)
.JPG)
.JPG)
