Back
Supreme Court to Examine Blanket Ban on Personal Information Disclosure in RTI Act
The is set to determine whether Parliament's amendment to the —which eliminated the public interest exception for disclosure of personal information—can withstand . On Friday, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana heard a batch of petitions challenging the amendment, which was introduced through the . The central question, as framed by the bench, is whether a on disclosing all digital personal information is permissible or whether the law must adopt a that balances the citizen's with the to privacy.
The bench's observations come at a critical juncture for transparency in governance. Previously, exempted personal information only when it had no relationship to public activity or interest, or when its disclosure would cause —yet even then, disclosure was allowed if the justified it. The amendment stripped away this safety valve, replacing it with an absolute bar on disclosing personal information, regardless of the potential public benefit.
A Shift in the Legal Landscape
Justice Bagchi, speaking for the bench, underscored the constitutional dilemma:
"The question is whether there can be a
on disclosure of all digital personal information, or whether the legislation has to adopt a
."
He further contrasted the scope of the two statutes, noting that
"the
Act operates on a much larger domain. It covers all forms of information, not merely digital information. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act operates in a much narrower sliver, although today that narrow sliver constitutes the overwhelming part of information."
This comparison raises the issue of whether the classification created by the amendment has a "
" in light of the law's object.
The pre-amendment text of Section 8(1)(j) read:
"information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the
justifies the disclosure of such information."
The amendment, however, removed the clause allowing disclosure in the
, effectively making the exemption absolute for personal information.
Petitioners Argue for a Balance
Advocate
, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the amendment
"fundamentally alters the RTI regime by removing the safeguard that enabled disclosure in
while adequately protecting privacy."
She emphasized that the original provision contained inbuilt safeguards that permitted withholding only when the information was both unrelated to public activity and harmful to privacy—but crucially, it still allowed disclosure when the public interest outweighed privacy concerns.
Advocates
and
further contended that the amendment could seriously impede investigative journalism. They argued that the DPDP Act provides no exemption for journalists.
"If a journalist is reporting, they must seek consent from the data principal, and if the data principal seeks erasure of the data, it would have to be erased,"
Bhushan said, stressing the direct impact on reporting that depends on official records to expose corruption and abuse of power.
The bench recalled its earlier observation that some balancing would be necessary to determine which categories of digital personal data warrant protection. Chief Justice Kant noted that the court had already indicated that a is required.
Solicitor General Seeks Time to Respond
Solicitor General , appearing for the Central government, submitted that the Centre would justify the amendment in its affidavit, subject to , and requested two weeks to file the response. The Court accepted the request and impleaded the as a party to the proceedings.
The challenge hinges on the interplay between two fundamental rights: the implicit in and the , recognized as a under . In a prior judgment authored by the then Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and N.V. Ramana, the Court acknowledged both rights and held that the original RTI Act struck a careful balance between them. The petitioners now argue that the amendment upends this equilibrium.
The Principle of Proportionality
At the heart of the dispute lies the . The bench's reference to a " " signals that any restriction on fundamental rights must be narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate state aim. The question is whether a blanket ban—covering all digital personal information irrespective of its connection to public activity—is overbroad and fails the test of reasonability.
The Court's reasoning will likely examine whether the amendment creates a reasonable classification between information held by public authorities and that held by private entities, and whether the state's "cautionary approach" in expanding privacy protection is justified given the RTI Act's broader purpose of ensuring transparency and accountability in governance.
Impact on Investigative Journalism and Transparency
If the amendment stands, journalists and civil society organizations may find it increasingly difficult to access official records that expose wrongdoing. The absence of a means that even where disclosure serves a vital public purpose—such as uncovering corruption, environmental hazards, or human rights violations—the information could be withheld if it falls within the ambit of "personal information."
The case also raises practical questions about the interface between the RTI Act and the DPDP Act. As the bench noted, while the DPDP Act deals with a narrower category of digital personal data, that category now constitutes a substantial portion of information held by public authorities. The outcome of this case will determine how these two statutes coexist and whether the RTI Act's transparency mission is preserved.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision will have profound implications for the , privacy, and the balance of power between the citizen and the state. The bench's emphasis on proportionality and the need to reconcile competing fundamental rights suggests that a nuanced resolution is likely, one that may strike a middle path rather than endorse an absolute ban. As the matter proceeds, legal professionals and advocates of transparency will be watching closely to see how the Court navigates this constitutional tightrope.
For now, the challenge remains pending, with the Centre's response expected within two weeks. The Court's next hearing will be pivotal in shaping the future of RTI and data protection in India.
