The Supreme Court Examines the Clash Between Data Privacy and the Right to Information
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India took up a case that could reshape the relationship between personal privacy and public transparency. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued a notice to the central government in response to a public interest litigation challenging specific provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The petitioners argue that these provisions weaken the Right to Information Act, a cornerstone of democratic accountability in the country for nearly two decades.
After hearing arguments from senior advocate Shyam Diwan, the court directed the Department of Personnel and Training and the Ministry of Law and Justice to submit their responses. It also ordered the state government of Rajasthan to be included as a party in the proceedings, signaling the wide-reaching implications of the case.
The Core of the Dispute
At the heart of this legal battle is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act. The petitioners, which include the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and prominent social activists Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, and Shankar Singh Rawat, contend that this provision effectively rewrites Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act of 2005. Their concern is that the change removes a crucial balancing mechanism that has allowed citizens to access government information while still protecting legitimate privacy concerns.
Under the original RTI framework, personal information could be withheld only if it had no bearing on public activity or the broader public interest. This built-in balancing test meant that officials could not simply hide behind privacy claims when the information was essential for exposing corruption, mismanagement, or misuse of public funds. The petitioners argue that the DPDP Act’s amendment overturns this equilibrium, replacing it with a blanket exemption that prioritizes privacy over transparency in almost every case.
The legal challenge asserts that this change violates multiple constitutional guarantees, including Article 14 (right to equality), Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
How Transparency Portals and Public Interest Groups Are Affected
Before the DPDP Act came into force, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act operated with a clear principle: personal information was exempt from disclosure only if it was unrelated to any public activity or interest. This allowed journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens to request details about government officials’ travel expenses, procurement decisions, and project implementation records. The system worked because it recognized that transparency and privacy are not always opposing forces—they can coexist when properly balanced.
The new provision, however, flips this logic. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act creates a blanket exemption for personal data, removing the public interest override that previously existed. This means that even when revealing information could serve the greater good, officials can now refuse to disclose it simply by labeling it as personal. Critics warn that this will make it far more difficult to audit government spending, investigate corruption, or hold public servants accountable for their decisions.
Demands for Restoration of Original RTI Provisions
The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to restore the original Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and its associated rules, effective from November 13, 2025. They argue that the DPDP Act should not be used to roll back hard-won transparency gains that have been instrumental in exposing wrongdoing and improving governance.
Additionally, the petitioners are seeking a clear declaration that proactive disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act must remain unaffected by the DPDP Act. These proactive disclosures include critical information such as beneficiary lists, muster rolls, and social audit records—data that directly impacts citizens’ rights and access to government schemes. Without this protection, transparency portals that have become vital tools for grassroots oversight could lose their effectiveness.
Will Getting Information Become Harder?
The practical implications of this legal challenge are significant. Under the current wording of Section 44(3), government officials now have a much broader basis to deny requests for information. If a citizen asks for details about a public works contract, an official could refuse by claiming that the contractor’s financial data is personal. Similarly, requests for information about the allocation of subsidized goods or the distribution of welfare benefits could be blocked on privacy grounds.
This shift threatens to undermine the very purpose of the RTI Act, which was designed to empower citizens to question authority and demand accountability. The petitioners argue that the amendment creates a loophole that could be exploited to shield administrative decisions from public scrutiny, making it harder to detect fraud, nepotism, or inefficiency in government operations.
Understanding the Digital Personal Data Protection Act
The DPDP Act, passed in 2023, represents India’s first comprehensive law for protecting citizens’ digital personal data. It sets strict rules for how companies and organizations collect, store, and use personal information online. Key features of the law include:
- Requiring explicit and informed consent from individuals before collecting their personal data.
- Granting individuals the right to correct, erase, or request details about how their data is being used.
- Mandating that data fiduciaries (entities collecting data) implement robust security measures and restrict usage of children’s data.
- Imposing fines of up to ₹250 crore for violations of the law.
- Permitting data transfers only to countries approved by the government, as per the 2025 rules.
The law was widely welcomed as a necessary step to safeguard citizens’ privacy in an increasingly digital world. However, the current controversy highlights the tension between this legitimate goal and the equally important need for transparency in democratic governance.
A Constitutional Test for the New Law
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case underscores the constitutional stakes involved. The petitioners have asked the court to declare that proactive disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act must continue unimpeded, even after the DPDP Act’s implementation. They argue that the state has a constitutional obligation to maintain this transparency framework, which is essential for ensuring that government programs reach their intended beneficiaries.
The court’s eventual ruling will define the boundary between an individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know. As the case progresses, all eyes will be on the central government’s response, which will reveal how it intends to balance these competing interests. The outcome could set a precedent for how India navigates the complex intersection of data protection, democratic accountability, and fundamental rights in the years to come.
