Mentor’s Comment

The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act through the DPDP Act, 2023 has triggered a constitutional debate on the balance between privacy and transparency. The issue tests the durability of India’s accountability framework in the digital governance era.

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench, citing its constitutional sensitivity.

What is Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005?

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts from disclosure personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless the Public Information Officer (PIO) is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies it. It balances privacy against transparency, though recent amendments have narrowed its application.

Key Aspects of Section 8(1)(j):

1. Exemption Scope: Covers information relating to personal details, privacy, and data that, if disclosed, would not benefit public activity.
2. Public Interest Override: Even if information is personal, it can be disclosed if the CPIO, SPIO, or appellate authority is satisfied that a “larger public interest” outweighs the harm to the individual’s privacy.
3. Applicability: Applies to “third-party” information and generally refers to individuals rather than institutions or corporate bodies.
4. Examples of Denied Info: Examples include third-party personal details, such as an employee’s ID or specific confidential files.
5. Amendment via DPDP Act 2023: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPPA), 2023 substituted this clause, broadly removing the “public interest override” and strengthening the prohibition against disclosing personal data.

How has the DPDP Act, 2023 amended Section 8(1)(j)?

1. Deletion of Override Clause: Removes the phrase allowing disclosure in larger public interest.
2. Expanded Exemption Scope: Prohibits disclosure of “any information which relates to personal information.”
3. Blanket Restriction: Eliminates proportionality assessment previously embedded in RTI framework.
4. Structural Shift: Converts a conditional exemption into near-absolute protection.
5. Integration with DPDP Framework: Aligns RTI disclosure norms with data protection regime prioritizing consent and privacy safeguards.

What constitutional and governance issues arise from this amendment?

1. Article 19(1)(a) Impact: Curtails right to information derived from freedom of speech and expression.
2. Article 21 Protection: Strengthens privacy rights recognized in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).
3. Doctrine of Proportionality Concern: Removes balancing test between competing fundamental rights.
4. State-Citizen Asymmetry: Section 7 of DPDP permits state processing of personal data without consent for official functions.
5. Accountability Deficit: Restricts citizen scrutiny of public officials’ conduct and financial dealings.

How does the amendment affect journalism and civil society oversight?

1. Data Fiduciary Classification: Journalists collecting personal data may fall under DPDP compliance obligations.
2. Financial Penalty Risk: Non-compliance may attract penalties up to ₹250 crore.
3. Chilling Effect: Limits investigative reporting involving public officials.
4. Reduced Transparency: Constrains access to procurement, audit, and expenditure records involving personal identifiers.
5. Institutional Constraint: Weakens RTI as a tool for civil society accountability campaigns.

How does the Indian framework compare with global data protection standards?

1. EU GDPR Model: Balances privacy with transparency and journalistic exemptions.
2. Public Interest Safeguards: Allows processing for public interest and accountability purposes.
3. Indian Divergence: DPDP amendment lacks explicit balancing mechanism within RTI framework.
4. Regulatory Integration Challenge: Requires harmonization between transparency law and data protection law.

Conclusion

The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) marks a decisive shift in India’s transparency regime. While privacy is a fundamental right, its protection cannot come at the cost of democratic accountability. A constitutionally balanced approach, grounded in proportionality and public interest, is essential to ensure that data protection strengthens, rather than weakens, the foundations of transparent governance.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now