"The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 protects privacy at the cost of transparency." Critically evaluate this assertion in light of recent judicial scrutiny of the DPDP framework.

The DPDP Act, 2023 gives statutory content to the right to privacy recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) under Article 21. But by amending the RTI Act, 2005, it has revived the transparency–privacy tension — which the Supreme Court agreed in March 2026 to examine [3].

Where the assertion holds

• Section 44(3) rewrites Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, deleting the "public interest" override that earlier allowed disclosure of personal information when public interest outweighed privacy harm — converting a balancing test into a near-categorical exemption [3].
• A three-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant issued notice to the Union on a petition by journalist Geeta Seshu and the Software Freedom Law Center, alleging a "blanket ban" that curtails the Article 19(1)(a) right to receive information [3].
• The Data Protection Board of India is constituted by and answerable to the Central Government — unlike SEBI or TRAI, it lacks structural insulation to rule against state processing exemptions for security of the state and public order [4].
• The Act nowhere distinguishes "personal data" from "public data", letting officials shield expenditure or conduct records under privacy cover.

Where it overstates

• Privacy is itself a fundamental right; the Act operationalises it through purpose-specific consent notices, withdrawal rights and Consent Managers [1].
• Section 8(2) of the RTI Act survives, permitting disclosure where public interest outweighs the protected harm; the Government holds that the amendment codifies Puttaswamy rather than bars access [2].
• The framework was consultative and calibrated — 6,915 public inputs on the draft Rules [5] and an 18-month phased compliance window [1].

The cost, therefore, falls less on transparency as a whole than on accountability of public office-holders. Judicial clarification of the personal–public data boundary, a restored statutory public-interest test, and a genuinely independent Board would let both rights coexist — advancing SDG-16's promise of accountable, transparent institutions.