SC to hear plea that DPDP Act weaponises privacy to curb RTI
SC to hear plea that DPDP Act weaponises privacy to curb RTI
A petition argues Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act weaponises privacy to deny RTI requests, challenging the balance between personal data protection and government transparency.
The Supreme Court is set to hear on February 16 a petition filed by rights and transparency activist Venkatesh Nayak challenging Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Nayak, represented by advocate Vrinda Grover, contends that the provision alters the RTI Act to allow public authorities to refuse information by labeling it as personal data. The petition argues this move weaponises the right to privacy to disarm the citizen’s access to information from the state.
It is argued that Section 44(3) amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, enabling automatic or blanket denials on grounds of personal data, rather than requiring a case-by-case assessment. The petition warns that such a shift could undermine transparency by making it easier for authorities to withhold information.
Historically, RTI exemptions weighed privacy against public interest, with a Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority conducting a careful balance before disclosure. The plea contends that the new provision upends this balance, extending privacy protections to shield itself and public functionaries from disclosure in routine matters such as procurement records, audit reports, and other records involving public funds or statutory discretion.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant is expected to hear the matter. Proponents of the challenge say the constitutional implications are serious and immediate, highlighting the ongoing tension between protecting personal data and ensuring government accountability. The case thus crystallizes a broader debate about how to safeguard privacy without curbing citizens’ right to seek information from the state.
