The Supreme Court of India issued notice to the Union of India on a constitutional challenge to Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), which amends the Right to Information Act, 2005 to create a blanket exemption for personal data disclosure. The Court referred the matter to a larger bench, recognising that the issues are "complex" and "sensitive" and implicate fundamental rights to both privacy and transparency.
Background
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act substitutes Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Under the original RTI provision, personal information could be disclosed if public interest in disclosure outweighed the invasion of privacy — a balancing test that allowed transparency advocates to access information about public servants' assets, decision-making, and conduct.
The substituted provision removes this balancing test entirely, exempting all personal data from RTI disclosure without any public interest override. The petition, filed by The Reporters Collective Trust in W.P.(C) No. 211/2026, argues that this amendment effectively rolls back a decade of transparency jurisprudence developed under the RTI regime.
The challenge gains additional significance because Phase 1 of the DPDP Act came into force on 13 November 2025, establishing the Data Protection Board, while core operational provisions — including the consent framework — are scheduled for Phase 2 in November 2026 and Phase 3 in May 2027.
Key Contentions
The petitioners raise the following arguments:
Right to information as fundamental right: The plea contends that access to information about public servants' conduct and decision-making is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as part of the right to freedom of speech and expression, and under Article 21 as part of the right to know.
Blanket exemption unconstitutional: The removal of the public interest balancing test in Section 8(1)(j) amounts to a legislative override of the transparency framework without adequate justification, violating the proportionality standard established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
Non-retrogression principle: The petitioners argue that the amendment constitutes a retrogressive step that reduces an existing level of rights protection, which is impermissible under constitutional law principles.
Implications for Practitioners
This case presents a direct collision between India's privacy framework and its transparency regime — two constitutional values that the Supreme Court has recognised as fundamental rights in separate landmark decisions. The Court's decision to refer the matter to a larger bench, rather than disposing of it at the regular bench level, indicates the constitutional significance it attributes to the issue.
For RTI practitioners and transparency advocates, the interim position is that Section 44(3) remains operative — the Court declined to stay the provision. This means that public authorities can currently refuse personal data disclosure under the amended Section 8(1)(j) without applying a public interest balancing test.
Data protection practitioners should monitor this case closely. If the larger bench reads down or strikes down Section 44(3), it would create a carve-out in the DPDP framework requiring personal data disclosure where public interest warrants it — potentially affecting compliance strategies for government bodies processing personal data.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act change about the RTI Act?
Section 44(3) substitutes Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which previously allowed disclosure of personal information where public interest outweighed the invasion of privacy. The new provision creates a blanket exemption for all personal data, removing the public interest balancing test. This means public authorities can now refuse RTI requests seeking personal information about public servants without weighing transparency interests.
Has the Supreme Court stayed the DPDP Act's RTI amendment?
No. The Supreme Court declined to grant interim stay on Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act. However, it issued notice to the Union of India and referred the constitutional challenge to a larger bench, acknowledging the issues implicate fundamental rights to both privacy and transparency under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. The next hearing is listed for 13 May 2026.