SC to hear petitions against RTI amendments under DPDP Act
SC to hear petitions against RTI amendments under DPDP Act
The Supreme Court will hear petitions challenging DPDP Act amendments critics say curb RTI disclosures, fueling a debate on open governance and citizens' rights.
The Supreme Court will hear a batch of petitions challenging amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, contending that they remove the discretion of information commissioners to decide whether disclosure serves a larger public interest. The petitions argue that Section 44 of the DPDP Act amounts to a blanket bar on disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The first plea, filed by the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) through advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenges the constitutional validity of this provision. Other petitions to be heard include one by the Reporters Collective Trust and another by Venkatesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, all contesting the same amendment. The petition describes the change as a serious blow to citizens’ fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a), arguing that many ordinary RTI requests—ranging from procurement records and audit reports to appointment files and use of public funds—could be automatically denied merely because the information is deemed personal. Nayak’s petition calls the amendment a “death knell for participatory democracy” and for open governance, warning of a chilling effect on transparency. The petitioners contend that the unamended Section 8(1)(j) previously allowed a balancing mechanism that empowered public information officers and appellate authorities to assess whether disclosure served a public interest, rather than issuing a blanket refusal. The petitions are listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, with the February 16 date marking the next crucial step in the legal contest over the DPDP Act’s impact on RTI access. In the broader context, supporters of stronger privacy protections argue the DPDP Act aligns data protection with transparency, but critics fear the changes could erode the right to know when public power is at stake. The outcome of the hearing could shape how information requests tied to public officials, procurement processes, and governance are treated in the years ahead. This case underscores the ongoing tension between privacy safeguards and the public’s right to information in a modern data regime.
