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

India finds itself at the intersection of privacy and openness, as the government’s recently passed Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act comes under sharp scrutiny. At the heart of the controversy: are rights to information being eroded under the guise of privacy protection?

The Attorney General (AG) of India has officially supported the stance of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) that the DPDP Act does not weaken the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

What has changed under DPDP

The trigger for concern is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends the RTI Act (2005), specifically Section 8(1)(j). The amendment removes a proviso that allowed public information officers to disclose personal information if they judged that doing so served the larger public interest.

Proponents in the IT ministry say that this change is mostly redundant, since Section 8(2) of RTI already provides that public interest can override exemptions — including cases involving personal data. Thus, according to them, privacy and transparency remain balanced.

IT Secretary S. Krishnan has been quoted saying, “There is no dilution, and in fact there is a strengthening.”

Dissenting voices: activists, journalists, and former judges

Not everyone agrees.

• Justice A.P. Shah, former Delhi High Court judge and ex‐Chairperson of the Law Commission, in an open letter urged the government to repeal the amendments, warning that they “destroy this delicate balance” between privacy and transparency.
• Journalists’ bodies argue that removing the public interest proviso weakens their tools to expose wrongdoing, corruption, or misuse of power. They see the changes as more than semantic — they believe they could underpin systematic denial of vital information.
• Civil society groups like the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) have joined calls for rollback, warning that the vague definitions and the removal of overriding public interest criteria may allow authorities to withhold information simply by classifying it as “personal”.

Government’s defense

The government maintains that:

1. The RTI Act’s Section 8(2) already provides for a public interest override; hence the removed proviso was redundant.
2. The change aligns RTI with the DPDP Act’s objectives and with the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right (e.g. Puttaswamy judgment).
3. No further amendments to the DPDP Act are expected; instead, the government may issue clarifying rules or FAQs to address concerns.

The Legal & Constitutional Tension

This is not just about statutory language. The concern is deeply constitutional:

• Right to Information is seen as part of democratic accountability and open government, deriving from Articles such as 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression) and the broader principles of transparency in a democracy.
• Right to Privacy, affirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), is also fundamental, but the law and courts have recognized that it is not absolute and may be curtailed in favor of legitimate public interest.

What’s at stake is how to draw lines: when is privacy protection being used appropriately, and when might it become a shield against oversight and criticism?

Possible Outcomes & What to Watch

• Whether the courts will be asked to interpret the DPDP-RTI amendment and possibly strike down aspects that are overbroad or ambiguous.
• Whether the government issues clarifying rules or FAQs that more clearly define terms like “personal information” and set out when public interest must prevail.
• Whether civil society and journalist groups continue to mobilize, possibly seeking judicial review or legislative corrections.
• How the new law is used in practice — much of the outcome will depend on how public authorities adjudicate RTI requests under the amended provisions.

Bottom line

While the AG’s backing gives the government legal cover, the dispute has exposed a deeper tension: between ensuring individual privacy in an increasingly digital era, and preserving the power of transparency that keeps public authorities accountable. How this balance plays out will define not just the fate of RTI, but the shape of democratic governance in India for years to come.