Supreme Court Sets Constitution Bench to Review DPDP‑Driven RTI Blanket Exemption
Updated (3 articles)
Petitions Challenging DPDP Amendment Sent to Constitution Bench The Supreme Court referred multiple petitions contesting the DPDP amendment to a Constitution Bench on February 26, following an earlier referral on February 19 [1][2]. The petitions argue that the amendment creates a blanket exemption for personal information under the RTI Act, raising constitutional questions. The Court labeled the issue “constitutionally sensitive,” prompting a full bench review.
Amendment Replaces Conditional Exemption with Absolute Ban Section 44(3) of the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act rewrites RTI’s Section 8(1)(j), removing the prior public‑interest test and imposing a blanket ban on any “personal information” [1][2]. Under the original provision, authorities could disclose data if a larger public interest justified it, a discretion now eliminated. The change also enables rejection of RTI requests concerning officials, procurement, audit reports, or public spending.
Government Defends Change as Privacy Protection for Officials The government argues the amendment safeguards the constitutional right to privacy of public officers, asserting that Section 8(2) still permits disclosure when public interest “clearly outweighs” privacy concerns [1]. Officials claim the revision prevents misuse of personal data and aligns with the DPDP’s broader privacy framework. Critics note the lack of a clear public‑interest override could hinder transparency.
Legal Experts and NGOs Warn of Ultra‑Vires and Chilling Effect Former IAS officer Rangarajan R and other legal analysts label the amendment ultra vires, urging repeal to restore the balance between privacy and transparency [1]. The Internet Freedom Foundation highlights a paradox: the state can process personal data without consent under Section 7 of DPDP, yet citizens lose the ability to demand the same data via RTI [2]. Reporters’ Collective warns that journalists could be deemed “data fiduciaries,” exposing them to fines up to ₹250 crore, which may suppress investigative reporting [2].
Chief Justice May Define ‘Personal Information’ Amid Divergent Interpretations The Chief Justice of India indicated the bench may need to delineate what constitutes “personal information” for the RTI context [2]. This definition will shape how the blanket exemption is applied and could affect future privacy‑transparency balances. The Court’s forthcoming judgment is expected to set a precedent for interpreting data‑protection statutes alongside the right to information.
Sources
-
1.
The Hindu: Supreme Court to Hear Challenges to Data Act’s Blanket RTI Exemption: reports the Court’s referral of petitions to a Constitution Bench, details the amendment’s absolute exemption, and presents both government privacy arguments and critics’ ultra‑vires claims.
-
2.
The Hindu: Supreme Court Refers RTI Amendment Petitions to Constitution Bench: outlines the referral, the Chief Justice’s call to define “personal information,” and concerns from the Internet Freedom Foundation and Reporters’ Collective about paradoxical data use and a chilling effect on journalism.
Timeline
Dec 10, 2025 – TMC MP Mohammed Nadimul Haque alleges in the Rajya Sabha that the central government is “reluctant and scared” to disclose information under the RTI Act, points to eight of ten Central Information Commission posts vacant and no Chief Information Commissioner since Sept 5, 2025, blames website glitches and delayed OTPs for a systematic demolition of RTI’s effectiveness, and demands release of ₹52,000 crore MGNREGA dues and ₹2 lakh crore pending scheme payments [3].
2005 – India enacts the Right to Information Act, establishing a legal right to obtain government information and creating a public‑interest test that allows disclosure of personal data when larger public interest outweighs privacy concerns, a provision later altered by the DPDP amendment [2].
2023 – Parliament passes the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, and Section 44(3) rewrites RTI’s Section 8(1)(j) to impose a blanket exemption on any “personal information,” removing the earlier public‑interest override and redefining the balance between privacy and transparency [1][2].
Feb 19, 2026 – The Supreme Court refers a series of petitions challenging the DPDP amendment to a Constitution Bench, noting the “constitutional sensitivity” of the issue, and the Chief Justice of India signals that the Court may have to define “personal information” for the first time [2].
Feb 19, 2026 – The Internet Freedom Foundation warns that the amendment creates a “legitimate uses” paradox by allowing the state to process personal data without consent under Section 7 of the DPDP Act while simultaneously blocking citizens from demanding the same data through RTI, undermining transparency [2].
Feb 19, 2026 – The Reporters’ Collective cautions that journalists could be classified as “data fiduciaries” under the DPDP Act, exposing them to fines up to ₹250 crore and chilling investigative reporting, thereby threatening RTI’s role in reducing state‑citizen information asymmetry [2].
Feb 25, 2026 – The Supreme Court schedules hearings before the Constitution Bench on the petitions contesting the DPDP amendment, treating the right to information as integral to Articles 19 and 21 and confronting arguments that the amendment exceeds constitutional limits and should be repealed [1].
Feb 25, 2026 – Government officials defend the amendment, claiming it safeguards the fundamental right to privacy of public officers and argue that Section 8(2) still permits disclosure when public interest “clearly outweighs” privacy concerns, a position contested by legal analysts who label the change ultra vires [1].