3 months ago
1
The Supreme Court connected Monday (February 16, 2026) agreed to notation to a Constitution Bench a bid of petitions challenging a “body blow” allegedly posed by India’s caller integer idiosyncratic information instrumentality to citizens’ close to a transparent and accountable authorities nether the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023 imposes a “blanket ban” connected the RTI Act, preventing applicants from seeking disclosure of ‘personal information’, the petitioners said. They submitted that the proviso cynically uses the close to privateness to cripple the citizens’ close to information.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, refused a plea to walk an interim bid to enactment the implementation of Section 44(3), though the apical justice said that the petitions raised a “complex, somewhat delicate and truly interesting” question of law.
“We whitethorn person to laic down what is meant by ‘personal information’,” Chief Justice Kant remarked, issuing announcement to the government.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for petitioner Venkatesh Nayak, submitted that the authorities “instead of utilizing a chisel, a hammer has been utilized to present assemblage blows to citizens’ close to information”.
The petitioners argued that Section 44(3) has amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Originally, the RTI proviso had exempted authorities from disclosing idiosyncratic accusation to an applicant if the details sought had nary narration to immoderate nationalist enactment oregon if disclosure would magnitude to unwarranted penetration of privacy. Even then, the authorities had to disclose if nationalist involvement outweighed privacy. The determination whether oregon not to uncover ‘personal information’ was taken by a Public Information Officer oregon the First Appellate Authority nether the RTI Act aft thoroughly weighing privateness and transparency concerns.
“Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had struck the close equilibrium betwixt the close to privateness and the close to information,” advocates Prashant Bhushan and Rahul Gupta, appearing for the National Campaign for People’ Right to Information, submitted.
Mr. Bhushan argued that a five-judge Constitution Bench successful its November 2019 judgement successful the Central Public Information Officer versus Supreme Court of India had examined Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to use the proportionality trial to equilibrium the close to accusation against the close to privacy. The 2019 judgement had held that idiosyncratic accusation should stay successful the realm of privateness unless disclosure was indispensable successful the larger nationalist interest.
Ms. Grover argued that Section 44(3) introduced by the DPDP Act has accorded the authorities “unguided discretion to contradict idiosyncratic information, which is unconstitutional”. In fact, the cardinal close to privateness has been extended to the state.
“It is an unreasonable regularisation connected the close nether Article 19 (right to escaped speech). Privacy is not a cardinal close disposable to the state. It violates Article 14 (right to adjacent treatment) by equating privateness of nationalist functionaries to that of mean citizens. It inverts the jurisprudence of privateness viz-a-viz the close to accusation and prioritises privateness implicit the larger nationalist involvement of transparency and unfastened governance,” Mr. Nayak’s petition argued.
Mr. Bhushan said the Constitutional effect of the DPDP proviso was some contiguous and serious.
“Every RTI exertion involving identifiable nationalist officials, procurement records, audit reports, assignment files, utilisation of nationalist funds, oregon workout of statutory discretion tin present beryllium denied automatically connected the crushed that it ‘relates to idiosyncratic information’,” Mr. Bhushan submitted.
The petitioners contended that the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has rendered the “right to accusation illusory” and sounded the decease knell for participatory ideology too being ruinous to ideas of unfastened governance.
