DPDP Act does not ‘dilute’ RTI Act, A-G says in opinion

Attorney-General for India R. Venkataramani said successful a written sentiment that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 did not “dilute” the Right to Information Act, 2005, a authorities root said.

Civil nine groups and transparency advocates person argued that the Act’s amendment of Section 8(1)(j), turning a partial exemption for authorities bodies to crook implicit “personal” accusation into a full exemption, undermined transparency.

However, Mr. Venkataramani said that a antithetic portion of the RTI Act, which had not been amended, would let authorities bodies to disclose specified idiosyncratic accusation successful effect to RTI requests. “Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 mandates disclosure of exempted accusation whenever nationalist involvement outweighs harm,” the sentiment said. Mr. Venkataramani declined to corroborate authorship of the sentiment erstwhile contacted by The Hindu, saying helium did not respond to media queries.

‘Balance betwixt privateness and transparency’

“There is nary dilution of accountability and transparency owed to [the] DPDP Act. It lone provides a ineligible model to guarantee equilibrium betwixt privateness and transparency, arsenic mandated by the Supreme Court successful the Puttaswamy lawsuit judgment.”

The Union government, which notified the RTI amendment successful November 2025, adjacent arsenic different parts of the DPDP Act were fixed a 12-18 period implementation timeline, has made a akin argument. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act lists retired exemptions wherever “there shall beryllium nary work to springiness immoderate citizen” accusation successful effect to a request. 

The earlier connection of Section 8(1)(j) exempted from providing “information which relates to idiosyncratic accusation the disclosure of which has nary narration to immoderate nationalist enactment oregon interest, oregon which would origin unwarranted penetration of the privateness of the idiosyncratic unless the Central Public Information Officer oregon the State Public Information Officer oregon the appellate authority, arsenic the lawsuit whitethorn be, is satisfied that the larger nationalist involvement justifies the disclosure of specified information,” with a proviso that accusation that cannot beryllium denied to Parliament cannot beryllium denied to citizens. 

That proviso, on with each words aft “personal information,” were deleted, elicited beardown condemnation from transparency activists, who had for years pushed backmost against the amendment’s implementation.