Back
Supreme Court Issues Notice on PIL Challenging DPDP Act's Overhaul of RTI Exemptions
In a significant development for the intersection of data privacy and transparency rights, the has issued notice to the on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) contesting (DPDP Act). The petition, filed by along with social activists Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, and Shankar Singh Rawat, argues that the provision unconstitutionally exempts all "personal information" from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), stripping away critical public interest safeguards. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also impleaded the and tagged the matter with similar pending pleas, signaling potential consolidation for a landmark ruling on privacy versus accountability.
This challenge comes amid the DPDP Act's recent enactment, aimed at regulating personal data processing but criticized for undermining RTI's transparency mandate. Petitioners seek not only to strike down the impugned section but also interim relief to prevent the masking or deletion of data already available on public portals, which they claim is vital for ground-level welfare monitoring.
Background: From Balanced Exemptions to Absolute Bars
The RTI Act, enacted in 2005, revolutionized governance transparency by empowering citizens to access public records.
allowed exemptions for personal information unrelated to public activity or interest, or causing unwarranted privacy invasion—but with a crucial proviso: disclosure could be directed if
"the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
This public interest override, coupled with Section 4's proactive disclosure requirements, enabled revelations like beneficiary lists, muster rolls, and social audit records under schemes such as MGNREGA.
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, however, substitutes this framework entirely. It mandates that no personal information shall be disclosed under RTI, abolishing the proviso, harm test, and legislative non-denial principle. The amendment, justified partly on the Supreme Court's 2017 Puttaswamy judgment recognizing privacy as a fundamental right under , has sparked debate. Critics, including the petitioners, contend it swings the pendulum too far, prioritizing privacy over information rights without nuance.
The DPDP Act itself carves public interest exceptions for government data processing (e.g., welfare schemes), yet denies citizens similar overrides—a inconsistency highlighted in the plea. This shift aligns with global data protection trends like GDPR but risks eroding India's hard-won RTI ecosystem, built on decades of activism by groups like MKSS, pioneers of social audits.
The Petition: Core Arguments Against Section 44(3)
Authored by advocates Gautam Bhatia, N Sai Vinod, and Madhav Aggarwal, and argued by Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan, the PIL mounts a multi-pronged assault. Primarily, it claims violation of (arbitrariness), (expression via information access), and (right to life via accountable governance).
A pivotal distinction is drawn between "personal" and "private" information:
"Information is personal when it pertains to or identifies an individual...information is private when it concerns that intimate sphere of an individual's life into which the State may not intrude without justification."
Unlike the old RTI regime's public activity and harm tests, the new provision's scope—
"information which relates to personal information"
—is "unlimited," potentially covering any record referencing a person. Petitioners warn:
"It exempts not just an official's name and address but records about the official's exercise of public duty, merely because those records identify the official."
For marginalized communities represented by MKSS—workers, farmers, and entitlement holders—state-held data like wage records, beneficiary lists, and public accounts is indispensable for enforcing rights to work, food, and non-arbitrary action. Proactive disclosures under
have fueled social audits, exposing corruption. The plea argues the amendment fails proportionality: no constitutional necessity existed to amend RTI, and Puttaswamy serves as
"an individual's shield against the State,"
not a tool for withholding public power records. Privacy, it stresses, is not superior to RTI.
Public Information Officers (PIOs) gain vast discretion to deny requests without standards, fostering a "chilling effect." Authorities, fearing DPDP liability, may preemptively restrict disclosures, including on state portals.
Case Title : Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and Ors. v. and Ors. , W.P.(C) No. 358/2026.
Relief Sought: Striking Down and Safeguarding Portals
Beyond invalidating Section 44(3) and restoring , petitioners demand:
- A declaration upholding 's proactive mandate.
- Interim stay against deleting or masking data on portals compliant with RTI or welfare laws.
- Mandamus directing authorities to maintain access to transparency platforms, notably Rajasthan's Jan Soochna Portal, hosting beneficiary data and audits.
These prayers underscore urgency: preemptive data purges could irreversibly impair accountability.
Supreme Court Proceedings: Notice and Tagging
On the listing, the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard Diwan briefly. Accepting the petitioners' request, it impleaded Rajasthan—home to the cited Jan Soochna Portal—and issued notice returnable with allied matters. This procedural step hints at the Court's recognition of nationwide stakes, potentially fast-tracking via a Constitution Bench if fundamental rights depth warrants.
Legal Analysis: Proportionality, Puttaswamy, and Inconsistencies
The petition's strongest pillar is proportionality, a post-Puttaswamy staple for rights restrictions. Section 44(3) is overbroad, under-inclusive (no private info carve-out), and lacks legitimate aim—RTI already balanced interests. Puttaswamy (2017) mandated privacy's contextual weighing against other rights; here, the State inverts it, using citizens' privacy to shield its own opacity.
DPDP's asymmetry—state enjoys public interest processing, citizens do not—breaches . Globally, regimes like Canada's PIPEDA or EU's GDPR retain public interest disclosures; India's absolute bar is outlier. Petitioners invoke RTI's basic structure status (per CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay , 2011), arguing parliamentary override via DPDP needs judicial scrutiny.
Broader Implications: Chilling Transparency in Welfare Governance
The "chilling effect" looms large:
"Public authorities may pre-emptively restrict disclosure"
under liability fears. Portals like Jan Soochna, mirroring national NREGA dashboards, democratized oversight. Masking beneficiary data could hobble anti-corruption tools, disproportionately hitting rural poor. Post-DPDP, RTI requests for "personal" welfare records—e.g., pensioner lists—face mandatory denial, sans appeal grounds.
This pits individual privacy against collective accountability, echoing debates in Aadhaar-RTI clashes. Victory for petitioners could preserve RTI's vitality; defeat might cascade, prompting DPDP rules to formalize exemptions.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For RTI lawyers, the case signals evolving practice: more PILs blending data law with constitutional torts. Data protection counsels must advise on "personal info" scope, PIOs on dual-compliance. Constitutional litigators eye tagging dynamics—could spawn a nine-judge bench revisiting Puttaswamy-RTI interplay?
Administratively, it pressures Data Protection Board (under DPDP) to clarify overlaps. Firms handling welfare audits may pivot to litigation strategies. Globally, it positions India in privacy-transparency discourse, influencing bilateral data pacts.
Conclusion: A Pivotal Clash for Democratic Accountability
As the Supreme Court lists this with kindred pleas, the battle over Section 44(3) transcends statutes—it's about whether privacy eclipses the people's right to know how public funds serve them. MKSS's legacy, from Rajasthan audits to national RTI, hangs in balance. Legal professionals await adjudication that could recalibrate India's information ecosystem, ensuring transparency endures in the digital age.
