Supreme Court Sends RTI Amendment Challenges to Constitution Bench, Signals Definition of Personal Information
Updated (2 articles)
Court Refers RTI Petitions to Constitution Bench On Monday, 19 February 2026, the Supreme Court transferred a batch of petitions contesting the amendment of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act by Section 44(3) of the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act to a Constitution Bench, describing the matter as “constitutionally sensitive” [1]. The Chief Justice of India indicated that the bench may need to delineate the meaning of “personal information” within this legal context [1]. This procedural move signals that the Court will consider the broader constitutional implications of the amendment rather than a routine statutory interpretation [1].
Amendment Removes Public‑Interest Override The DPDP amendment eliminates the original RTI provision that permitted disclosure when a Public Information Officer judged that a larger public interest justified it, replacing it with a blanket prohibition on any “personal information” [1]. Consequently, requests concerning officials, procurement details, audit reports, or public spending can now be rejected outright [1]. The change overturns two decades of jurisprudence that balanced privacy with transparency under the RTI framework [1].
Freedom Foundation Highlights Paradox The Internet Freedom Foundation argues that Section 7 of the DPDP Act allows the state to process personal data without consent, yet the RTI amendment blocks citizens from using comparable principles to demand governmental transparency [1]. The Reporters’ Collective warns that journalists could be classified as “data fiduciaries” under the DPDP Act, exposing them to fines up to ₹250 crore for non‑compliance [1]. This dual standard raises concerns about a chilling effect on investigative journalism and public‑interest reporting [1].
Potential Impact on Transparency and Journalism Since its enactment in 2005, the RTI Act has significantly narrowed the information asymmetry between the government and the public, fostering accountability [1]. The new blanket ban threatens to erode this democratic safeguard, potentially reducing investigative reporting to merely republishing official releases [1]. Stakeholders fear that the amendment could undermine the core purpose of RTI by prioritizing data protection over the public’s right to know [1].
Related Tickers
Timeline
2005 – India enacts the Right to Information Act, establishing the right to seek government information as a fundamental component of Article 19 and beginning a two‑decade effort to narrow the state‑citizen information gap[2].
2023 – Parliament passes the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which later amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act via Section 44(3), stripping the public‑interest override and imposing a blanket ban on “personal information” disclosures[1].
Sep 5, 2025 – The post of Chief Information Commissioner remains vacant, leaving the Central Information Commission without a chief and undermining its capacity to oversee RTI appeals[2].
Nov 2025 – Eight of the ten Central Information Commission positions stay unfilled, causing second‑appeal disposals to lag by two to three years and eroding RTI effectiveness[2].
Dec 10, 2025 – TMC MP Mohammed Nadimul Haque tells the Rajya Sabha that “the central government is reluctant and scared to disclose information under RTI,” accusing the NDA of systematically demolishing the law and urging protection of its sanctity[2].
Dec 2025 (past seven months) – Activists report that the RTI portal suffers frequent crashes and delayed OTPs, a digital failure the MP links to the government’s reluctance to share information[2].
Feb 19, 2026 – The Supreme Court sends petitions challenging the DPDP amendment to a Constitution Bench, calling the issue “constitutionally sensitive” and noting the Court may have to define what “personal information” means[1].
Feb 19, 2026 – Chief Justice of India remarks that the bench “may have to lay down what is meant by ‘personal information’” in the context of the RTI amendment, signaling a pivotal legal clarification[1].
Feb 19, 2026 – The Internet Freedom Foundation points out a paradox: while Section 7 of the DPDP Act lets the state process personal data without consent, the RTI amendment blocks citizens from using similar principles to demand transparency[1].
Feb 19, 2026 – The Reporters’ Collective warns that journalists could be classified as “data fiduciaries” under the DPDP Act, facing fines up to ₹250 crore, a move that could chill investigative reporting to mere government releases[1].