SC seeks govt's reply on pleas against RTI changes through DPDP Act

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 to the Right to Information (RTI) Act made through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. Petitioners argue that the changes dilute transparency by removing the public interest safeguard governing disclosure of personal information.

 

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it would consider the Centre’s response before proceeding further.

 

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

 

 

During the hearing, Advocate Vrinda Grover said the challenge was confined to the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which deals with exemption from disclosure of personal information. She argued that while the earlier provision exempted only limited categories of personal information and incorporated a public interest test, the amended provision broadly exempts all personal information from disclosure, thereby restricting access to information protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

 

Recalling an earlier hearing, the Bench observed that a balance would have to be struck between the right to privacy and the right to information while determining the categories of digital personal data that merit protection.

 

Appearing for one of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Nisha Bhambhani argued that the amendment could adversely affect investigative journalism if access to information depended on the consent of the data principal or if individuals were subsequently allowed to seek erasure of information relevant to public reporting.

 

Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued 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 vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Referring to the judgments authored by Justices D Y Chandrachud and N V Ramana, he said the Court had recognised both rights as fundamental and held that the RTI Act already struck an appropriate balance.

 

Bhushan argued that the original Section 8(1)(j) exempted only personal information unrelated to any public activity or public interest, or whose disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The amended provision, he contended, removes that distinction by treating all personal information as exempt from disclosure.

 

He argued that the amendment could prevent 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 matter will be taken up after the Centre files its response.