The Statesman: New Delhi: Saturday, 8th August
2026.
The Court observed that the central issue was whether Parliament could impose a blanket prohibition on disclosure of all digital personal information or whether the law was required to adopt a proportionate approach.
The Supreme Court on
Friday indicated that the constitutional challenge to the amendment to Section
8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, which removed the public interest
exception for disclosure of personal information, would require a careful balancing
of citizens’ right to information with the fundamental right to privacy.
The Court observed that the central issue was whether Parliament could impose a blanket prohibition on disclosure of all digital personal information or whether the law was required to adopt a proportionate approach.
The observations came from a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana while hearing petitions challenging the amendment to the Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act brought through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act.
Justice Bagchi observed that the Court would have to examine whether Parliament’s decision to widen the protection available to personal information satisfies constitutional standards.
Referring to the scheme of the two enactments, he noted that while the RTI Act operates in a much wider field covering all forms of information, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act deals with a narrower category, though one that today constitutes a substantial part of the information held by public authorities.
The question, according to the Bench, was whether the legislature’s cautionary approach and the classification created by the amendment bear a reasonable and intelligible nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The issue assumes significance because, prior to the amendment, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act permitted withholding of personal information only in limited circumstances, while preserving disclosure where a larger public interest justified it.
The Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act before amendment read:- “(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
“Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Vrinda Grover submitted that the amendment fundamentally alters the RTI regime by removing the safeguard that enabled disclosure in larger public interest while adequately protecting privacy.
Chief Justice Kant observed that the Court had, even during the earlier hearing, indicated that a balancing exercise would be necessary to determine the categories of digital personal data deserving protection.
Advocates Nisha Bhambhani and Prashant Bhushan contended that the amendment could seriously impede investigative journalism by restricting access to official records relied upon in exposing corruption and abuse of power.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, submitted that the Centre would justify the amendment in its affidavit, subject to judicial review, and sought two weeks’ time to file its response.
Accepting the request, the Court impleaded the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology as a party to the proceedings.
The Court observed that the central issue was whether Parliament could impose a blanket prohibition on disclosure of all digital personal information or whether the law was required to adopt a proportionate approach.
The Court observed that the central issue was whether Parliament could impose a blanket prohibition on disclosure of all digital personal information or whether the law was required to adopt a proportionate approach.
The observations came from a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana while hearing petitions challenging the amendment to the Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act brought through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act.
Justice Bagchi observed that the Court would have to examine whether Parliament’s decision to widen the protection available to personal information satisfies constitutional standards.
Referring to the scheme of the two enactments, he noted that while the RTI Act operates in a much wider field covering all forms of information, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act deals with a narrower category, though one that today constitutes a substantial part of the information held by public authorities.
The question, according to the Bench, was whether the legislature’s cautionary approach and the classification created by the amendment bear a reasonable and intelligible nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The issue assumes significance because, prior to the amendment, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act permitted withholding of personal information only in limited circumstances, while preserving disclosure where a larger public interest justified it.
The Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act before amendment read:- “(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
“Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Vrinda Grover submitted that the amendment fundamentally alters the RTI regime by removing the safeguard that enabled disclosure in larger public interest while adequately protecting privacy.
Chief Justice Kant observed that the Court had, even during the earlier hearing, indicated that a balancing exercise would be necessary to determine the categories of digital personal data deserving protection.
Advocates Nisha Bhambhani and Prashant Bhushan contended that the amendment could seriously impede investigative journalism by restricting access to official records relied upon in exposing corruption and abuse of power.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, submitted that the Centre would justify the amendment in its affidavit, subject to judicial review, and sought two weeks’ time to file its response.
Accepting the request, the Court impleaded the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology as a party to the proceedings.
.JPG)
.JPG)
