The RTI’s shift to a ‘right to deny information’

Polity & Governance · 28 September 2026 · Based on The Hindu (original report)

2-minute summary

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is undergoing a structural shift from a 'right to know' to a 'right to deny' due to recent legislative amendments. Specifically, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act has amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Originally, Section 8(1)(j) exempted personal information from disclosure only if it had no relationship to public activity or interest, or if it caused an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It also contained a crucial proviso: information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen. The DPDP Act amendment removes these balancing tests, the public interest override, and the parliamentary proviso, establishing a blanket ban on disclosing any 'personal data'. This severely weakens public accountability, as corrupt practices, official credentials, and beneficiary lists can now be shielded under the guise of protecting personal privacy, intensifying the friction between the fundamental right to information (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to privacy (Article 21).

Why it's in the news

The article analyzes how the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act's amendment of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act fundamentally alters the transparency regime in India, turning personal information exemptions into a blanket tool for denying public information requests.

Facts to remember

• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act has amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act.
• The Right to Information Act was enacted in 2005.
• The Supreme Court's K.S. Puttaswamy judgment in 2017 declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21.

Background and context

The RTI Act, 2005 was enacted to promote transparency, accountability, and contain corruption in government functioning. It is rooted in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (Freedom of Speech and Expression). Section 8 of the Act lists exemptions to disclosure. Section 8(1)(j) dealt with personal information, balancing privacy with public interest. It contained a vital proviso: 'Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.' However, over the years, public authorities increasingly misused this section to deny legitimate queries. The conflict escalated with the Supreme Court's K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017), which declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21. To operationalize this, the government enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to prohibit the disclosure of all personal information without exception, effectively overriding the public interest override and the legislative proviso.

Constitutional provisions

• Article 19(1)(a) — Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to encompass the Right to Information.
• Article 21 — Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under the K.S. Puttaswamy ruling.

Committees and reports

• Second Administrative Reforms Commission (1st Report: Right to Information) — Recommended that exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act should be interpreted strictly and narrowly to ensure maximum public disclosure.
• Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India (Chaired by Justice B.N. Srikrishna) — Highlighted the need to balance the right to personal data protection with the right to information, warning against blanket exemptions that dilute transparency.

Previous UPSC questions on this theme

• Mains GS-4 2018 — "The Right to Information Act is not all about citizens' empowerment alone, it essentially redefines the concept of accountability." Discuss.

Mains practice: Analyze the conflict between the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy in light of the recent amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and the Right to Privacy (Article 21) are both fundamental pillars of a vibrant democracy. While RTI ensures public accountability, privacy protects individual autonomy. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act's amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has intensified the friction between these two rights by creating a blanket exemption for personal data.

• **The Original Balance under Section 8(1)(j)**: Previously, personal information was exempt only if it had no connection to public activity or caused unwarranted invasion of privacy. Crucially, a proviso stated that information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen, and public interest could override privacy.

• **The DPDP Act Amendment**: The amendment removes the balancing test, the public interest override, and the parliamentary proviso. It establishes a blanket prohibition on disclosing any personal data of individuals.

• **Implications of the Amendment**:

• *Erosion of Accountability*: Public officials can shield details of their assets, qualifications, and official conduct under the guise of 'personal data'.

• *Impact on Welfare Schemes*: Social audits of beneficiary lists (e.g., PDS, MGNREGA) will become difficult, increasing the scope for corruption and leakages.

• *Dilution of Citizen-Centric Governance*: It reverses the democratic principle that the citizen is the master and the government is the custodian of information.

To resolve this conflict, a harmonized approach is required. The judiciary and legislature must establish clear guidelines where 'personal data' of public officials acting in their official capacity is clearly distinguished from private personal data, ensuring that privacy does not become a shield for corruption.

Prelims practice questions

Q1. Consider the following statements regarding Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, as amended by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act: 1. It completely removes the proviso which stated that information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen. 2. It retains the authority of the Public Information Officer (PIO) to disclose personal information if they are satisfied that a larger public interest justifies the disclosure. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: A. The DPDP Act amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act removes the public interest override and the parliamentary proviso, creating a blanket exemption for personal data. Thus, statement 1 is correct and statement 2 is incorrect.

Q2. The Right to Information in India is primarily rooted in which of the following constitutional provisions?

1. Article 14
2. Article 19(1)(a)
3. Article 21
4. Article 300A

Answer: B. The Supreme Court of India has held in multiple judgments (such as State of UP v. Raj Narain, 1975) that the Right to Information is an integral part of the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Q3. Which of the following committees/commissions recommended that the disclosure of information should be the rule and exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act should be tightly and narrowly construed?

1. Sarkaria Commission
2. Second Administrative Reforms Commission
3. Law Commission of India 179th Report
4. First Administrative Reforms Commission

Answer: B. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) in its 1st Report, 'Right to Information: Master Key to Good Governance', emphasized that exemptions under Section 8 should be interpreted strictly and narrowly to promote maximum transparency.

Revision flashcards

• What is the primary constitutional basis of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in India? Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases like State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975).
• How did the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act alter Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act? It replaced the conditional exemption for personal information with a blanket ban on disclosing personal data, removing the public interest override and the parliamentary proviso.
• What was the significance of the 'Parliamentary Proviso' in the original Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act? It stated that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any citizen, serving as a benchmark for public disclosure.
• Which landmark Supreme Court judgment declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21? K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
• What is the main ethical concern regarding the dilution of the RTI Act through data protection laws? It creates a conflict of interest where public officials can use the right to privacy as a shield to avoid public accountability and hide corrupt practices.