SC refuses to stay RTI amendment under data protection law
text_fields
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to stay an amendment to the Right to Information Act introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, according to reports by Bar and Bench.
The amendment bars the disclosure of personal information relating to public officials, even on grounds of larger public interest.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi observed that the issue was sensitive as it involved balancing competing fundamental rights. “We have to iron out the creases and lay down what is personal information,” Chief Justice Kant was quoted as saying.
The court noted that it cannot stay a legislation enacted by Parliament without hearing the matter in detail. It agreed to decide the case at the earliest and said the matter would be placed before a larger bench in March. The bench also issued notice to the Union government, Live Law reported.
The petitions were filed by news organisation The Reporters’ Collective and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, among others. The Reporters’ Collective has challenged the constitutional validity of the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act and the rules framed under it in 2025.
The plea specifically contests provisions relating to consent, data processing obligations, government access to data, amendments to the RTI Act and the establishment of the Data Protection Board, Bar and Bench reported.
The petitioners argued that the rules notified in November disturb the balance between privacy, transparency and free speech.
Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Earlier, disclosure of personal information was permitted if it served a larger public interest. The amendment removes this exception, effectively blocking such disclosures.
According to the petitioners, the revised provision enables authorities to deny information by categorising it as “personal”, even when it relates to public activity or accountability.
The law also does not provide exemptions for processing personal data in public interest or for journalistic purposes, including investigative reporting, the plea contended.
News associations have expressed concern over the data protection rules, stating that the “ambiguous obligations” imposed by them could pave the way for indirect censorship.
Critics have described the amendment to the RTI Act as a serious threat to the transparency and accountability principles that the law was originally intended to safeguard.
