Does the DPDPA Take Over the RTI Act? Understanding the Interaction Between Privacy and Transparency in India

The enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) has sparked a debate in legal, policy and civil society circles about whether India’s new data protection law has effectively overridden or weakened the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), a landmark transparency statute that has been a cornerstone of democratic accountability.

At the heart of this debate lies an amendment introduced by the DPDPA to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which deals with exemptions from disclosure of personal information. The change has generated significant discussion about how privacy and transparency can coexist in the modern data-driven era.

What Changed in the RTI Act Through the DPDPA

Traditionally, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act made personal information exempt from disclosure only if it had no relation to public activity or interest, or if disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy unless the Central Public Information Officer or appellate authority was satisfied with that larger public interest justified disclosure. This “public interest override” was a key safeguard used by information authorities to balance individual privacy with transparency.

However, the DPDPA amended this provision by simplifying the language: the exemption now generally covers “information which relates to personal information.” This removes the explicit balancing test that previously allowed release of such information when the public interest clearly demanded it.

Government’s Position: No Dilution of RTI

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Union government maintain that this amendment does not dilute the RTI Act or take it over. According to statements made in Parliament and official clarifications:

• The change merely aligns the RTI legal text with India’s recognition of the right to privacy as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
• The government emphasizes that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still allows public authorities to disclose information, even if it falls under exemptions, when the public interest in disclosure outweighs harm to protected interests.
• Officials have argued that the earlier “public interest override” was redundant because the broader statutory protection already permitted such disclosures when justified.
• Government representatives, including IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, have repeatedly stated that the amendment is intended to balance privacy and transparency, not override or weaken the RTI regime.

This interpretation has also been supported by the Attorney General of India, who backed the government’s stance that the DPDPA does not diminish citizens’ right to information under the RTI Act.

Critics’ Concerns: Impact on Transparency

Despite official assurances, many legal experts, civil society advocates, RTI activists and journalists argue that the practical effect of the amendment could be quite different:

• By removing the explicit public interest consideration from Section 8(1)(j), the revised provision potentially allows public authorities to categorize broad classes of information as “personal” and refuse to disclose them outright even if those details are crucial for public accountability or oversight.
• Under the DPDPA, the definition of personal data is broad and includes any information that can identify a person. Consequently, information such as asset declarations, official conduct data, scheme beneficiary lists or expenditure records traditionally accessed by citizens to ensure transparency could be treated as non-disclosable personal information.
• Critics point out that this could undermine the original intent of the RTI Act, weakening its role as a tool for fighting corruption and enabling citizen participation in governance.

These concerns have been translated into constitutional petitions before the Supreme Court, where petitioners argue that the amendment unduly prioritizes privacy at the expense of transparency and hampers democratic oversight. Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to examine these challenges, although it has declined to stay the contentious provision pending hearing. 

Practical Implications for Governance and Civil Society

The debate over whether the DPDPA takes over the RTI Act underscores a broader policy dilemma: how to protect individual privacy rights in a digital age, while preserving the public’s fundamental right to access information about government functioning.

• For citizens and journalists, the concern is that routine refusals citing “personal data” may reduce access to records essential for accountability.
• For public authorities, the amended provision provides a clearer legal basis to protect personal data, aligning with privacy jurisprudence and reducing litigation risk.
• For policymakers, the challenge is to ensure that privacy protections do not inadvertently become tools to withhold information that legitimately serves the public interest.

In essence, the DPDPA does not formally repeal or replace the RTI Act, but its amendment of the RTI Act represents a significant shift in how personal data is treated within the transparency framework, a shift that continues to be the subject of legal scrutiny and public debate.

Conclusion: Harmonization or Supremacy?

The relationship between the DPDPA and the RTI Act today is not one of outright replacement, but rather one of interaction and interpretation. The government characterizes the amendment as a harmonizing move to align the right to privacy with transparency, while critics fear it tilts the balance toward secrecy. Whether this legal recalibration ultimately strengthens democratic governance or weakens public access to information will depend on how courts interpret these provisions and how public authorities apply them in practice.

Contact us for a free consultation at info@dpdpconsulants.com or visit our website DPDP Consultants