Evaluate the impact of the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on citizens' right to information.

Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 replaces Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The new clause is a bare exemption for "information which relates to personal information" [1]. It came into force with the DPDP Rules, 2025, notified in November 2025 [3]. The change protects privacy, but it tilts RTI from disclosure by default towards secrecy by default.

Positive impact

• Constitutional alignment: it gives statutory form to privacy as a fundamental right under Art. 21 (K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017). The government says transparency and privacy will co-exist [2].
• Protection of third parties: it shields citizens' health, financial and family data from RTI being used for harassment or profiling.
• Safeguard retained: Sec. 8(2) still allows disclosure where public interest outweighs harm to protected interests [4].
• Coherent regime: it brings RTI in line with the consent-based data framework, so Public Information Officers (PIOs) face fewer conflicting rules.

Negative impact

• Calibrated test removed: under the old clause, personal information could be withheld only if it had no link to public activity or would cause an "unwarranted" invasion of privacy. Even then, it could be released if a larger public interest justified it [4]. Now all personal information is exempt at the first step [1].
• Burden shifts to the citizen: the PIO starts from refusal. The applicant must appeal and argue public interest under Sec. 8(2), which costs time and effort.
• Weaker accountability: officials' assets, contractor details and beneficiary lists are all "personal" and can now be refused. This blunts anti-corruption checks and social audits.
• Narrower channel for watchdogs: RTI activists and investigative journalists, who depend on quick access, lose the most.

Evaluation On balance, the amendment meets a real privacy need at a disproportionate cost to transparency. It swaps case-by-case balancing for a blanket bar, and its benefits could have come from a narrower drafting.

The amendment strengthens individual privacy but weakens the citizen's ability to hold power to account. Parliament should restore the public-interest and "unwarranted invasion" wording inside Sec. 8(1)(j). Information commissions should also push proactive disclosure under Sec. 4. A fix in the spirit of Puttaswamy's proportionality test would let Art. 21 privacy and the Art. 19(1)(a)-rooted right to know support each other.