Home › Blog › Supreme Court to Examine DPDP Act vs RTI

Supreme Court of India hearing constitutional challenge to Section 44(3) of DPDP Act 2023.

Supreme Court to Examine if DPDP Act is Crippling RTI – Data Protection vs Transparency Debate for Exams

The Supreme Court of India on 7 August 2026 agreed to examine a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, that amend the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, observed that both statutes are central laws and that there is a clear need to harmonise them. The Court directed the Centre to file its response within two weeks.

At the heart of the challenge is the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, effected through Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act. The earlier RTI provision exempted personal information only if it had no relationship to any public activity or interest, and even then allowed disclosure if a larger public interest justified it. The amended version removes these qualifiers and the public-interest override, creating a broader exemption for personal information. Petitioners argue that this change enables public authorities to refuse large categories of information by simply classifying it as “personal,” thereby undermining the transparency regime established in 2005.

The constitutional intersection of Right to Privacy (Article 21) and Right to Information (Article 19(1)(a)).

During the hearing, the Court noted that the RTI Act operates on a much larger domain than the DPDP Act, covering all forms of information, while the data-protection law is concerned specifically with digital personal data. Justice Bagchi remarked that the earlier law provided access with conditions, whereas the newer provision appears to impose an en-bloc embargo, raising questions of possible repugnancy that must be examined with extreme care.

Petitioners, including media organisations and transparency activists, further contended that the DPDP framework could impede investigative journalism. They argued that requirements of consent from the “data principal” and the right to erasure could make it difficult to report on matters of public importance involving individuals. The Court acknowledged the need to balance the right to privacy with the right to information but indicated that the precise calibration of that balance requires fuller consideration after the government’s reply.

The case sits at the intersection of two fundamental constitutional values: the right to privacy (recognised as a fundamental right in the Puttaswamy judgment) and the right to information, which flows from Article 19(1)(a) and has been institutionalised through the RTI Act. Parliament’s attempt to update data-protection norms for the digital age is legitimate; the question before the Court is whether the chosen method of amending the RTI Act has tilted the balance excessively against transparency.

For competitive-exam aspirants the controversy is highly relevant to Polity and Governance. It illustrates the ongoing tension between privacy and transparency, the doctrine of harmonious construction of statutes, the scope of judicial review over legislative amendments that affect fundamental rights, and the practical working of the RTI regime. Questions may ask candidates to compare the original and amended Section 8(1)(j), discuss the public-interest override, or analyse how courts balance competing rights.

The outcome of the case will influence the day-to-day functioning of information commissions, the ability of citizens and journalists to access information about public officials and public activities, and the broader architecture of accountability in the digital era. Until the Court delivers its final view, public authorities and information seekers will operate in an atmosphere of legal uncertainty regarding the precise boundary between protected personal data and information that must be disclosed in the public interest.

Accurate understanding of the specific amendment under challenge, the Court’s preliminary observations on harmonisation, the arguments on both sides, and the constitutional values at stake will equip aspirants to handle both short notes and analytical questions on this evolving area of law.

Frequently Asked Questions