SC to Review if Data Protection Law Delivers a ‘Blow’ to RTI
Background
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to refer petitions challenging Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) to a Constitution Bench under Article 145.
Petitioners contend that the provision significantly weakens the Right to Information (RTI) framework by curtailing access to personal information, thereby affecting transparency and accountability in governance. While the Court declined to grant an interim stay, it issued notice to the Union Government, indicating the constitutional importance of the issue.
What is a Constitution Bench?
- Formed under Article 145 of the Constitution
- Comprises a minimum of five judges
- Decides substantial questions of constitutional interpretation
Section 44(3) of DPDP Act, 2023: Key Issue
- Restricts disclosure of “personal information” under the Right to Information Act, 2005
- Petitioners argue it creates a “blanket ban” on disclosure of personal information
- Alleged to dilute transparency by expanding exemptions under RTI
Amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005
Original RTI provision (Section 8(1)(j)): Allowed exemption from disclosure if information was personal and unrelated to public activity, or disclosure caused unwarranted invasion of privacy
- However, disclosure was allowed if larger public interest justified disclosure
- Decision made by: Public Information Officer (PIO) and first Appellate Authority
Effect of DPDP Act Amendment
- Petitioners argue DPDP amendment removes public interest balancing test.
- May allow denial of information related to: Public officials; Government appointments; Procurement records; Audit reports; Use of public funds
Constitutional Issues Involved
Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression
Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression: Includes Right to Information (recognised by Supreme Court). Petitioners argue DPDP provision imposes unreasonable restriction.
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Includes Right to Privacy, recognised in: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017). Petitioners argue: Privacy right should not override transparency in public governance.
Article 14: Right to Equality
Petitioners argue provision wrongly equates privacy rights of: Public officials and ordinary citizens
Important Supreme Court Judgment Cited
Central Public Information Officer vs Supreme Court of India
- Constitution Bench judgment
- Applied proportionality test to balance:
- Right to Privacy
- Right to Information
- Held:
- Personal information can be disclosed if larger public interest exists
Way Forward
A constitutional balance is required where privacy is protected, but public interest and accountability are not sacrificed—especially in matters involving public officials and use of public resources. The Constitution Bench verdict will likely redefine the future contours of RTI in the digital age.
