Your go-to hub for Expert Insights,
Publications, and Resources on
data privacy and compliance

New Delhi, August 2025. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has reaffirmed that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, does not weaken the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Instead, it clarifies and strengthens the interplay between privacy and transparency.

Redundancy Eliminated, Not Rights

IT Secretary S. Krishnan, in a statement to the Hindustan Times, emphasized that Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act simply removes a "redundant provision" from Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This clause allowed disclosure of private information in the name of public interest. According to him, it was unnecessary because Section 8(2) already provides a robust public-interest override for disclosures. He asserted:

“There is no dilution, in fact there is a strengthening.”

Parliamentary Clarification and Legal Backing

The issue was raised through a starred question in the Lok Sabha, prompting IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw to clarify that the amendment aligns the RTI Act with judicial interpretive frameworks. This includes the Supreme Court's recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in the Puttaswamy judgment. He added that the amendment prevents legal conflict between overlapping laws.

Government Assertions vs. Civil Society Concerns

Government Perspective

As per a press release by the Press Information Bureau (PIB), the DPDP Act’s amendment reflects careful reconciliation of privacy and transparency, backed by extensive public consultation with over 22,600 inputs before enactment. The government also notes that the Rules governing DPDP are being finalized and will soon be operational, though they remain pending more than 24 months after the Act’s passage.

Reaction from Experts and Activists

Despite official assurances, civil society actors, including journalists and RTI advocates, warn of serious implications.

• A prominent open letter from Justice A.P. Shah, co-author of the 2012 Group of Experts report, urged immediate repeal of the amendment. He highlighted that the removal of the public-interest proviso and the vague definition of “personal information” could undermine RTI’s foundational purpose of citizen empowerment and government accountability.
• The Internet Freedom Foundation emphasized concerns around the absence of a ‘journalistic purpose’ exemption in the DPDP Act. Without it, and with the RTI amendment, journalists may be unduly constrained in accessing and reporting critical government information.

Strategic Insights for Public Policy, Governance, and Law

For professionals engaged in policy, legal practice, or public administration, several key takeaways emerge:

• Clarifying Redundancy vs. Dilution: The deletion of duplicated language can streamline statutes. Yet the optics and implications of removing any provision from a flagship transparency law demand heightened sensitivity.
• Juridical Anchoring: Aligning new legislation with Supreme Court jurisprudence is critical. The DPDP’s amendment seeks coherence with Puttaswamy and the principle that privacy, while fundamental, is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest.
• Need for Legislative Precision: Ambiguously phrased exemptions or removal of public-interest overrides can erode institutional transparency. Clarity in law drafting is essential to preserve RTI’s core functions.
• Engaging Stakeholders Effectively: While the government touts extensive consultations, experts underscore that the outcome, absent meaningful checks like a journalist exemption, still raises legitimate concerns. Future policy initiatives must integrate responsive stakeholder engagement with legislative rigor.

Conclusion

The DPDP Act’s amendment to the RTI Act embodies a nuanced legal recalibration, seeking harmony between two foundational democratic rights, privacy and transparency. MeitY frames it as both necessary and reinforcing, while critics warn of potential erosion in practice.

As India’s governance frameworks evolve, the effective implementation of this balance will depend on clarity in rules, judicial scrutiny, and persistent civic vigilance.

Stay with us for updates on: DPDP Consultants Newsletter