The Right to Information (RTI) Act is founded on the principle that in a democracy, which is defined as “rule of the people, by the people, for the people”, all information held by the government inherently belongs to the citizens. The government acts as a custodian of this information on behalf of the populace. Citizens legitimise their representatives by electing them, who in turn legitimise the bureaucracy. Therefore, the default mode under the RTI is that all information must be shared with citizens.
However, the Act always included specific exemptions to protect certain interests, such as national sovereignty. One crucial exemption is the Act’s Section 8(1)(j), which is on “personal information”.
The original Section 8(1)(j) was a detailed provision designed to balance the right to information with individual privacy. It stipulated that personal information could be denied if it had no connection to public activity or constituted an “unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual”, unless there was a larger public interest in its disclosure.
A key aspect of this original provision was a proviso which is an acid test. It said: “provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”. This meant that if information could not be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature it could also not be denied to an ordinary citizen. The intent was to guide public information officers (PIOs) in discerning what constituted public activity, private activity, or an invasion of privacy, especially given the difficulty in definitively defining “privacy” (even Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union Of India acknowledged that it would evolve on a case-to-case basis). The government routinely collects information from an individual in the normal course of its duties, and such information is generally not considered to be an invasion of privacy and should, therefore, be shared. However, if it invades his privacy, it must not be taken routinely. Restrictions on the fundamental right to information should be within the limits set by Article 19(1)(2) of the Constitution. Here, there are only two words relating to privacy: ‘decency’ or ‘morality’. If disclosure violates decency or morality, it should be denied to Parliament and citizens.
The ambiguity of ‘personal information’
The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act — a drastic alteration of Section 8(1)(j) that reduces its length to six words. This significant abbreviation makes it easy for most information to be denied. The core concern revolves around the interpretation of “personal information” itself.
One of the most pressing issues is the lack of a clear and consistent definition of “personal information” under the amended RTI Act, especially in its relationship with the new Data Protection Law. There are two conflicting views: the first is Natural Person Interpretation: One view holds that “person” should be understood in its general sense, referring to a “normal person” or natural person. The second is the DPDP Bill Definition. The other, equally valid view, interprets “person” as defined in the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Bill. The DPDP Bill’s definition is expansive, including a “Hindu undivided family, a firm, a company, [and] any association of individuals and the State”.
If the latter definition is adopted, “almost everything is personal information”. A significant amount of information can be shown to be related to some person. Thus the law gives a handle to deny most information. The RTI is transformed into a Right to Deny information. It becomes an ‘RDI’. This broad interpretation poses a fundamental threat to the spirit of transparency. Adding to the complexity, the DPDP Bill contains a provision that overrides all other laws in cases of conflict. This is alarming because the DPDP Bill specifies strong penalties for violations which can be as high as ₹250 crore.
This creates an untenable situation for PIOs. As much of the government information is now digital, PIOs are apprehensive that a mistake in disclosing information could lead to severe financial penalties. This fear will incentivise PIOs to err on the side of information denial rather than disclosure, effectively creating a “right to deny information”. The DPDP Act must not override the RTI Act, though it might be acceptable for it to override other Acts.
Facilitating corruption
The practical implications of these amendments are dire for public accountability and the fight against corruption. Transparency is a crucial tool in this battle, especially when other anti-corruption mechanisms have proven to be ineffective.
The first is the loss of public monitoring. Citizens are the best monitors against corruption. If information is denied, this vital monitoring mechanism is severely hampered. India’s multilayered government agencies such as vigilance departments, anti-corruption bureaus and the Lokpal, have abjectly failed to curb corruption.
The second is denial of essential information. The broadened scope of “personal information” means that even mundane yet crucial documents could be withheld — a citizen’s own corrected marksheet could be denied as “personal”. The example of Rajasthan sharing details of pension beneficiaries to combat “ghost employees” and “ghost cards” will cease. Even a simple order signed by an official could be denied as “personal information”. It can result in over 90% of information being denied.
The third is unfettered corruption. The amendment “makes it the easy thing to be corrupt”. Information relating to ghost employees or corruption charges falls under “personal information”. It will be hidden, allowing corruption to ‘flourish and continue unhindered’.
While the “larger public interest” clause still exists in the RTI Act (in Section 8(2)), its practical application is extremely rare and difficult. Citizens should not have to demonstrate “larger public interest” to access information as it is their fundamental right. This requirement only applies if information is already exempt.
There will be less than 1% orders where an exemption is accepted, but disclosure is based on larger public interest. This is because it is an incredibly challenging decision for any officer to make, weighing potential harm to an individual against the broader public benefit of disclosure. Therefore, relying on this clause to ensure transparency after the amendment is largely futile.
Apathy and a call to action
Despite the gravity of these amendments, there has been a notable lack of public and media outcry when compared to previous RTI changes, such as those concerning Commissioner’s salaries and tenures. This apathy may be due to the amendment being “under the guise of data protection”, making it seem less threatening to the average citizen. There is also a common sentiment that an individual’s own information should not be shared, regardless of its relevance, leading to an ‘ego takes over’ mentality.
Sections 8(2) and 44(3) of the DPDP Bill constitute a “very fundamental regression on our democracy” and a “very fundamental attack on our fundamental rights”.
There needs to be a focus on four issues. First, media and citizen engagement — there must be widespread public discussion across the country. Second, political accountability — citizens should demand assurances from political parties in their election manifestos that these amendments will be reversed. Third, public opinion — it is crucial to build strong public opinion with the support of the media. Fourth, recognition of gravity — this issue deserves as much attention as any other critical national debate, as the fundamental right to information is being compromised.
If citizens continue to remain silent, they will imperil their freedom and democracy. Collective action can lead to these changes being reversed. The future of transparency and accountability in India hinges on whether citizens and media can push back and protect the integrity of the RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi is a former Central Information Commissioner
Published – September 13, 2025 12:16 am IST