SC seeks Centre's response on DPDP Act amendment to right to information

Petitioners argued that the amendment broadly exempts personal information from disclosure by removing the public-interest safeguard contained in the earlier RTI provision

The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Centre two weeks to respond to petitions challenging amendments made to the Right to Information (RTI) Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, with the petitioners arguing that the changes significantly dilute transparency by removing the public-interest safeguard governing the disclosure of personal information.

 

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the court would examine the government's reply before proceeding further.

 

“We will have to consider the reply,” the CJI observed after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought two weeks to file the Centre's response.

 

 

During the hearing, advocate Vrinda Grover submitted that the challenge was directed specifically against the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which deals with exemption from the disclosure of personal information.

 

She argued that the earlier provision permitted the withholding of only limited categories of personal information and incorporated a public-interest test. According to her, the amendment removes those safeguards and broadly exempts all personal information from disclosure, thereby restricting access to information protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution — the right to freedom of speech and the right to life and personal liberty.

 

Recalling an earlier hearing, the CJI noted that the court had already indicated that a balance would have to be struck regarding the categories of digital personal data deserving protection.

 

“The balance has to be worked out with the right to privacy,” the Bench observed.

 

Appearing for one of the petitioners, senior advocate Nisha Bhambhani argued that the amendment could have serious consequences for investigative journalism. She submitted that journalists could face significant hurdles if the disclosure of information depended on the consent of the data principal or if individuals were later able to seek the erasure of information relevant to public reporting.

 

Advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the constitutional balance between the right to information and the right to privacy had already been settled by the Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal.

 

Referring to the judgments authored by Justices D Y Chandrachud and N V Ramana, he argued that the court had recognised both rights as fundamental and held that the RTI Act appropriately balanced them.

 

Bhushan submitted that the original Section 8(1)(j) exempted only personal information that bore no relation to any public activity or public interest, or whose disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The amended provision, he argued, abandons that distinction by treating all personal information as exempt from disclosure.

 

He warned that the amendment could prevent the disclosure of information such as pending charge sheets against public officials or records relating to welfare schemes and ration cards merely because such information could be characterised as personal.

 

The court posted the matter for further hearing after the Centre files its response.