New Delhi: Supreme Court Friday sought the Centre’s response on a batch of pleas challenging amendments made to the Right to Information (RTI) Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard submissions from senior advocate Vrinda Grover and advocate Prashant Bhushan before asking Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to file the government’s response.
The pleas said the changes dilute transparency by removing the public interest safeguard for disclosure of personal information.
The petitions challenge the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which deals with exemptions from disclosure of personal information.
The transparency law provision was amended by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act in 2023 to alter how personal data and privacy exemptions are handled in government information requests.
The amendment removes key qualifiers and the “larger public interest override” text, making personal information broadly exempt from public disclosure.
In defence of the law, it is said that the change does not block legitimate transparency, but rather harmonises the RTI framework with the fundamental right to privacy.
Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the amendment alters the earlier provision by removing safeguards that balanced privacy concerns with the public’s right to know.
Earlier, section 8(1)(j) of the RTI exempted personal information from disclosure if it has no relation to any public activity or interest. However, information can still be disclosed if a larger public interest justifies it.
“The challenge is actually to the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI. Earlier, the provision had inbuilt safeguards on the nature of personal information that could be withheld from disclosure. Those safeguards have now been removed,” she said.
Grover said the deletion of the “public interest” qualifier means that information relating to personal data is now exempt from disclosure without any balancing exercise, consequently, excluding a broad category of information protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The CJI said that he had said earlier also that “some balancing would have to be done regarding the kind of digital personal data that requires protection”.
The Solicitor General informed the bench that the Centre would file its reply within another two-three weeks.
Appearing for an intervenor, advocate Nisha Ambani contended that the amendments would have serious implications for investigative journalism.
“The balance has to be worked out with the right to privacy,” the CJI said. Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said that the balance between the right to information and the right to privacy had already been settled by the top court in a judgment.
Referring to the judgment authored by then Justices DY Chandrachud and NV Ramana, Bhushan said the court had recognised both the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy as fundamental rights, while holding that the original RTI Act struck a careful balance between them.
He said that the erstwhile Section 8(1)(j) exempted only personal information that had no relationship to any public activity or public interest, or whose disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
“That balance has now been dismantled. The amendment treats all personal information as exempt from disclosure,” Bhushan said.
He further said that the amendment could result in denial of access to information such as pending charge sheets against public officials or details relating to welfare schemes and ration cards merely because they could be classified as personal information.
The bench said it would consider the Centre’s response before proceeding further. Earlier on February 16, the bench had issued notices on the petitions.
The top court, however, had refused to grant an interim stay on the impugned provisions, saying “by an interim order, it will not thwart a regime introduced by Parliament unless we hear the case”.
