Supreme Court asks Centre to respond on RTI amendments under DPDP Act

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 7, 2026) sought the Union government's response on a batch of petitions challenging the amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act brought in through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. The matter was listed before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.

Senior advocate Vrinda Grover and advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Centre. After hearing the initial arguments, the Bench directed the Solicitor General to file the government's reply.

The petitions challenge the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which deals with exemptions from disclosure of personal information. The petitioners contend that the original provision included a proviso that permitted disclosure of such information when it was required in the larger public interest. The amendment, introduced through the DPDP Act, removes this proviso, making the exemption absolute and subject to no public interest override.

According to the pleas, this alteration significantly weakens the RTI framework, which was designed to ensure that citizens have access to information held by public authorities. The petitioners argue that the change empowers officials to deny requests for information simply by citing personal data, without weighing the public's right to know. They caution that this could enable corruption and misuse of public office to go unreported, as crucial documents or decisions could be shielded from scrutiny.

The RTI Act, passed in 2005, is widely considered one of India's most effective anti-corruption tools. Courts have consistently held that the right to information is an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. The public interest test in Section 8(1)(j) was specifically framed to strike a balance between an individual's right to privacy and the collective right to transparent governance.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act was enacted in 2023 with the stated objective of protecting personal data of individuals. While the law itself has been welcomed by privacy advocates, the petitioners argue that its application to the RTI Act goes beyond the legislative intent. They say the amendments were made without adequate debate and effectively subordinate the RTI Act to data protection norms, contrary to the democratic principle of transparency.

The petitioners further submitted that the amendment could be misused to classify routine information about public officials as personal data, thereby preventing citizens from learning about their conduct. They argued that information relating to entitlement, emoluments, and decisions made by public officials in their official capacity should not be treated as private in the same manner as intimate personal details.

Advocates Vrinda Grover and Prashant Bhushan emphasised that the change could have a chilling effect on activists, whistleblowers, and journalists who regularly use the RTI Act to obtain information on governance. With the public interest safeguard gone, they argued, the exemption clause could become a convenient shield for inaction and misconduct.

The Solicitor General did not raise any preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petitions. The Bench directed the Centre to file its response and listed the matter for further hearing. No interim order was passed, meaning the amended provision remains in operation for now.

This case is being closely watched by legal experts, transparency advocates, and civil society organisations, as it raises fundamental questions about the relationship between privacy and transparency in a digital democracy. The Supreme Court's decision could set a precedent not just for the RTI Act, but for how other transparency laws are reconciled with data protection legislation in India and beyond.