Polity · GS2.5, GS2.1, GS4.6 · 2026-10-13 · 3 min read · 2026-10-13-pm
Supreme Court Refers RTI Amendment Privacy Issue to Constitution Bench
The Supreme Court of India has referred petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench due to its constitutional sensitivity. This development is crucial for UPSC aspirants as it highlights the ongoing tension between transparency and privacy in governance, a key theme in Indian polity and governance.
The Supreme Court is examining how the RTI Act amendment affects the balance between citizens' right to information and personal data privacy.
Why is this in the news?
On October 13, 2026, the Supreme Court referred petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the DPDP Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench, recognizing its constitutional sensitivity.
What changes did the RTI Act amendment introduce?
- Amendment details. The DPDP Act, 2023, amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to remove the 'public interest override' that allowed disclosure of personal information if justified by larger public interest.
- Effect of amendment. The amendment prohibits disclosure of any information related to personal information, creating a blanket ban that can block access to officials' details, procurement records, audit reports, and public spending information.
Why does this amendment matter for governance and transparency?
- Impact on state accountability. The RTI Act was designed to reduce information asymmetry between the state and citizens, ensuring government accountability; the amendment dilutes this by restricting access to information.
- Citizen vs state data rights. While the DPDP Act allows the state to process personal data without consent, the RTI amendment denies citizens the ability to scrutinize the state using similar principles, creating an imbalance.
- Chilling effect on journalism. Journalists may be classified as 'data fiduciaries' under the DPDP Act, facing heavy fines for non-compliance, which risks reducing investigative journalism to mere government press releases.
What constitutional issues does the Supreme Court need to address?
- Definition of personal information. The Supreme Court may have to define what constitutes 'personal information' to balance privacy rights with transparency.
- Public interest override principle. The Court must consider the precedent that personal information should remain private unless disclosure is necessary for the larger public interest, as held in the 2019 Central Public Information Officer judgment.
Key numbers
| Figure | What it measures | Source |
|---|---|---|
| ₹250 crore | Maximum fine for non-compliance under the DPDP Act for data fiduciaries such as journalists |
Back to basics: Right to Information Act and Transparency
The Right to Information Act, 2005, empowers citizens to access information from public authorities to promote transparency and accountability in governance. It includes provisions that allow withholding information only in specific cases, such as protecting personal privacy, but permits disclosure if the larger public interest justifies it. Transparency reduces information asymmetry between the government and citizens, essential for a functioning democracy.
Practice: MCQ, Mains and revision
Prelims MCQ
Consider the following statements about the RTI Act amendment and related issues: 1. The DPDP Act amendment removed the public interest override from Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 2. Journalists are exempted from the DPDP Act's provisions on data fiduciaries. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer and trap
Answer: (a). Statement 2 is incorrect because journalists are not exempted and may be classified as data fiduciaries under the DPDP Act, facing penalties.
Mains question (15 marks)
Discuss the challenges in balancing transparency and privacy in the context of recent amendments to the Right to Information Act.
Discuss: Explain the implications of the RTI Act amendment on transparency and privacy, and analyse the constitutional issues involved.
Intro: The RTI Act amendment raises complex issues about balancing citizens' right to information with privacy protections.
- Explain the original RTI Act's public interest override and its role in ensuring transparency.
- Analyse how the DPDP Act amendment removes this override and its impact on access to information.
- Discuss the constitutional questions the Supreme Court must address regarding personal information and public interest.
- Examine the implications for journalism and government accountability.
Conclusion: Balancing transparency and privacy requires careful judicial interpretation to uphold democratic accountability without compromising personal data rights.
Previous year question (2018, GS2)
The Right to Information Act is not all about citizens' empowerment, it essentially redefines the concept of accountability. Discuss.
This news illustrates how the RTI Act redefines accountability by enabling citizens to access government information, and how amendments can affect this balance.
Quick revision
- What did the DPDP Act, 2023, change in the RTI Act's Section 8(1)(j)?
- It removed the public interest override, prohibiting disclosure of any personal information.
- Why is the amendment seen as creating an imbalance between state and citizens?
- Because the state can process personal data without consent, but citizens cannot access similar information for transparency.
- What is the potential impact of the amendment on journalism?
- Journalists may face fines up to ₹250 crore for non-compliance, risking investigative reporting.
Sources
- [1] The Hindu: Privacy and transparency: On the RTI Act amendment, petitions · 2026-10-13 · newspaper