Discuss whether the amendment of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act through the DPDP Act, 2023 strikes the right balance between the right to privacy and the right to information.

The DPDP Act, 2023 replaced Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The original clause exempted personal information only if it had no link to public activity or interest or caused an unwarranted invasion of privacy [3]. The new clause exempts personal information outright [1]. The amendment protects privacy, but it shifts the balance away from accountability.

Arguments that the balance is right

• Privacy is a fundamental right: Puttaswamy (2017) placed privacy under Article 21. The government says the amendment puts that ruling into law and harmonises the two Acts [1].
• Public-interest override retained: under Section 8(2), information can still be released where the public interest outweighs the harm [1]. The government says this stays fully operative under the DPDP Rules, 2025 [2].
• Prevents misuse: RTI should not become a tool to collect private citizens' personal data.

Arguments that it tilts against information

• Built-in test removed: Public Information Officers (PIOs) no longer have to weigh the public-activity and unwarranted-invasion tests inside clause (j) [3].
• 'May', not 'shall': Section 8(2) only allows disclosure; it does not require it [3]. The burden shifts to the citizen to prove public interest.
• Accountability requests at risk: officials' assets, attendance records and beneficiary lists all involve someone's personal information, so each can now be refused.
• Weak correction mechanism: in Anjali Bhardwaj (2019), the Supreme Court called information commissions "vital for the smooth working of the RTI Act" and ordered timely appointments [4]. Understaffed commissions cannot quickly reverse wrong refusals.

Way forward

• DoPT guidance listing personal information that should normally be released, such as officials' public duties and spending of public money.
• Restore a public-interest test within clause (j), or make the Section 8(2) balancing test mandatory.
• Fill commission vacancies on time, as Anjali Bhardwaj directed [4].

Overall, the amendment rightly protects privacy, but replacing a balancing test with a blanket exemption weakens the right to information. Clear guidelines, a mandatory public-interest test and strong commissions can reconcile Article 21 privacy with the right to know under Article 19(1)(a). This would advance SDG 16.10 on public access to information and restore the balance the 2005 Act intended.