The Right to Information (RTI) Act is the tool citizens use to prise records out of government. Its Section 8(1)(j) let authorities withhold "personal information" — but with a crucial override: it had to be disclosed if a larger public interest justified it.

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 amended that clause and removed the public-interest proviso. Critics say this creates a near-blanket exemption: an official can decline a request simply by labelling the record "personal data".

Why transparency advocates are alarmed

RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj warned the change "undermines transparency, weakens the public’s ability to hold authorities accountable, and restricts access to critical government records". Former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A. P. Shah called the amendments "manifestly ill-thought-out" and "ripe for constitutional challenge".

The information most often sought through RTI — officials’ assets, beneficiary lists, file notings — frequently involves named individuals. Remove the public-interest test and much of it becomes deniable.

Where it stands

The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging the amendment to a five-judge Constitution Bench, to balance the genuine right to privacy against the equally genuine right to know. The constructive outcome would restore a clear public-interest override — privacy and transparency are not actually in conflict when the test is "does the public need to know this".