Business Standard: New Delhi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
India's data protection law has changed access to personal information under RTI, prompting concerns over investigative journalism, transparency and the scope of the public-interest test
The Supreme Court on
Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by the Digital News
Publishers Association (DNPA), challenging provisions of India's digital data
protection framework.
Senior advocate Madhavi Diwan, representing the association, argued that the law could restrict investigative journalism and make it harder to report matters of public interest. She further said the provisions could have serious implications for live television coverage and time-sensitive reporting.
The challenge brings into focus a pertinent question: when does protecting an individual's privacy risk shielding information that the public needs to hold those in power accountable?
The court has sought the government's response, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on November 17.
What has changed in the RTI Act?
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, allows public authorities to withhold certain personal information.
Earlier, such information could be withheld if it had no connection with public activity or interest, or if disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, it could be disclosed when the larger public interest justified it.
Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, changed this provision. Effective November 13, 2025, it introduced a broader exemption for information relating to personal information.
The key change is that the clause no longer expressly provides for a public-interest test. However, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still permits disclosure when the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests.
Why are journalists challenging the change?
Consider a reporter investigating whether a government official’s relatives have undisclosed interests in a company receiving public contracts. Records containing personal information could help establish a conflict of interest. Similarly, details concerning the qualifications or eligibility of a public appointee may be relevant to scrutiny of a government decision. Publishers fear that data protection obligations could complicate the handling of confidential sources and evidence gathered during investigations for journalistic purposes.
The DNPA argues that the data protection framework does not adequately address the concerns of journalists engaged in covering and reporting on matters of public interest.
The petition further highlights the gap between the government's assurances and journalists’ demand for a statutory exemption for journalistic activities. The concern extends beyond RTI requests to the obligations that the DPDP Act and its accompanying Rules may impose on journalists.
How could this affect ordinary citizens?
RTI is not a tool reserved for newsrooms. Citizens use it to question public expenditure, check welfare benefits, examine recruitment processes and investigate delays in government services.
For instance, a person seeking to understand irregularities in a public recruitment exercise may need records explaining how appointments were made. A community investigating the distribution of welfare benefits may need information to establish whether public money reached eligible beneficiaries.
If authorities interpret the personal-information exemption broadly, obtaining relevant records could become more difficult. This could weaken the citizen’s access to the crucial data which interests welfare.
However, the amendment does not mean that every document containing personal information must automatically be withheld. Other RTI provisions and the surviving public-interest override remain relevant. The practical question is how authorities apply these safeguards when privacy and transparency are in conflict.
What is the government's argument?
The government’s position is that personal privacy deserves meaningful protection and that the amendment balances privacy with the right to information. Personal records may expose individuals to harassment, misuse of sensitive details or unnecessary intrusion into their private lives.
The government has also maintained that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act continues to allow disclosure where the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests. From this perspective, stronger privacy protection does not eliminate transparency but establishes safeguards against illegitimate disclosure.
The dispute, therefore, is not whether privacy matters. It is whether the amended provision strikes the right balance between protecting individuals and enabling legitimate scrutiny of public affairs.
What will the Supreme Court have to decide?
The Supreme Court will have to examine whether the challenged provisions strike a constitutionally permissible balance between privacy, access to information and freedom of expression. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), the court recognised privacy as a fundamental right. That situation does not, by itself, settle how privacy must be balanced against transparency and other constitutional rights.
The DNPA's challenge also raises questions about the DPDP Act and Rules, including their implications for journalistic work and the handling of personal data for public-interest reporting.
The petitioners seek the apex court to examine the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and provide appropriate relief against their alleged impact on journalism and the public's right to information. The central issue is whether privacy protection can be designed without unduly restricting scrutiny of public institutions.
India's data protection law has changed access to personal information under RTI, prompting concerns over investigative journalism, transparency and the scope of the public-interest test
 |
The government’s position
is that personal privacy deserves meaningful protection and that the amendment
balances privacy with the right to information | Image: Canva |
Senior advocate Madhavi Diwan, representing the association, argued that the law could restrict investigative journalism and make it harder to report matters of public interest. She further said the provisions could have serious implications for live television coverage and time-sensitive reporting.
The challenge brings into focus a pertinent question: when does protecting an individual's privacy risk shielding information that the public needs to hold those in power accountable?
The court has sought the government's response, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on November 17.
What has changed in the RTI Act?
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, allows public authorities to withhold certain personal information.
Earlier, such information could be withheld if it had no connection with public activity or interest, or if disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, it could be disclosed when the larger public interest justified it.
Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, changed this provision. Effective November 13, 2025, it introduced a broader exemption for information relating to personal information.
The key change is that the clause no longer expressly provides for a public-interest test. However, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still permits disclosure when the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests.
Why are journalists challenging the change?
Consider a reporter investigating whether a government official’s relatives have undisclosed interests in a company receiving public contracts. Records containing personal information could help establish a conflict of interest. Similarly, details concerning the qualifications or eligibility of a public appointee may be relevant to scrutiny of a government decision. Publishers fear that data protection obligations could complicate the handling of confidential sources and evidence gathered during investigations for journalistic purposes.
The DNPA argues that the data protection framework does not adequately address the concerns of journalists engaged in covering and reporting on matters of public interest.
The petition further highlights the gap between the government's assurances and journalists’ demand for a statutory exemption for journalistic activities. The concern extends beyond RTI requests to the obligations that the DPDP Act and its accompanying Rules may impose on journalists.
How could this affect ordinary citizens?
RTI is not a tool reserved for newsrooms. Citizens use it to question public expenditure, check welfare benefits, examine recruitment processes and investigate delays in government services.
For instance, a person seeking to understand irregularities in a public recruitment exercise may need records explaining how appointments were made. A community investigating the distribution of welfare benefits may need information to establish whether public money reached eligible beneficiaries.
If authorities interpret the personal-information exemption broadly, obtaining relevant records could become more difficult. This could weaken the citizen’s access to the crucial data which interests welfare.
However, the amendment does not mean that every document containing personal information must automatically be withheld. Other RTI provisions and the surviving public-interest override remain relevant. The practical question is how authorities apply these safeguards when privacy and transparency are in conflict.
What is the government's argument?
The government’s position is that personal privacy deserves meaningful protection and that the amendment balances privacy with the right to information. Personal records may expose individuals to harassment, misuse of sensitive details or unnecessary intrusion into their private lives.
The government has also maintained that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act continues to allow disclosure where the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests. From this perspective, stronger privacy protection does not eliminate transparency but establishes safeguards against illegitimate disclosure.
The dispute, therefore, is not whether privacy matters. It is whether the amended provision strikes the right balance between protecting individuals and enabling legitimate scrutiny of public affairs.
What will the Supreme Court have to decide?
The Supreme Court will have to examine whether the challenged provisions strike a constitutionally permissible balance between privacy, access to information and freedom of expression. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), the court recognised privacy as a fundamental right. That situation does not, by itself, settle how privacy must be balanced against transparency and other constitutional rights.
The DNPA's challenge also raises questions about the DPDP Act and Rules, including their implications for journalistic work and the handling of personal data for public-interest reporting.
The petitioners seek the apex court to examine the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and provide appropriate relief against their alleged impact on journalism and the public's right to information. The central issue is whether privacy protection can be designed without unduly restricting scrutiny of public institutions.
.JPG)
.JPG)
