Does the amendment of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act through the DPDP Act dilute transparency in public life? Discuss.

Under the old Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, an officer could withhold personal information only if it had no link to public activity or caused an "unwarranted invasion" of privacy, and even then disclosure was allowed if a larger public interest justified it [1]. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 replaced this test with a general exemption for personal information. Since the DPDP Rules took effect on 14 November 2025 [3], this change has largely diluted transparency, though the government has some valid points.

How the amendment dilutes transparency

• The built-in test is gone: Information Officers no longer have to check whether information relates to a person's public role. Personal information is now exempt simply because it is personal [1].
• Officials' conduct is shielded: Asset details, service records and disciplinary actions can be refused as "personal". This weakens anti-corruption scrutiny and social audits.
• The burden falls on citizens: The remaining override in Section 8(2) is general and left to the officer's discretion [2]. Officers can refuse first and push applicants into appeals.
• State versus citizen: The Act lets the State exempt its own agencies. PRS warns this may allow data processing "beyond what is necessary" [4]. Meanwhile, citizens' view into the State narrows.
• Impact on the press: Journalists lose a key investigative tool. India's 2018 draft law had a journalistic exemption [5], but the final Act left it out.

The government's case

• It says the change puts into law the right to privacy from Puttaswamy (2017), balances both rights and avoids conflict between the two laws [2].
• It says Section 8(2) still allows disclosure where public interest outweighs harm, and that information other laws require to be disclosed stays available [2].
• Third parties named in files, such as junior employees, do deserve protection from unjustified exposure.

Assessment The old clause already protected private individuals through the "unwarranted invasion" test [1]. Removing the public-interest test therefore adds little privacy protection and costs a lot of transparency.

The amendment trades a case-by-case weighing for a near-blanket bar, which mostly benefits public officials. Parliament should restore the public-interest wording, and the Supreme Court should test the change for proportionality. Together with clear guidelines on what counts as "public activity", these steps would protect privacy without making it a shield against accountability. That balance is what Article 19(1)(a), Article 21 and SDG 16.10 (public access to information) require.