Privacy and transparency are both facets of democratic accountability. Comment in the context of recent data protection law in India.

Privacy protects the citizen from the State, and transparency opens the State to the citizen. Both restrain unchecked power. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025 protect the first well. However, they risk weakening the second.

Privacy and transparency: twin checks on power

• K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) made privacy a fundamental right. Any limit on it must be proportionate, meaning no wider than the need [1].
• The Srikrishna Committee (2018) said privacy must be balanced against free speech and the right to receive information. It named public relevance and a person's role in public life as factors to weigh [1].

How the DPDP law advances accountability

• Notice and consent must come before data is processed, and consent can be withdrawn at any time [1].
• Data Fiduciaries must answer rights requests within 90 days. Failing to report a data breach can draw penalties of up to ₹200 crore [2].
• A Data Protection Board has been set up, and the law is being brought in over 18 months in three phases [3].

Where it weakens transparency

• RTI dilution: Section 44(3) rewrites RTI Section 8(1)(j). Critics say this removes the public-interest test. The Government says Section 8(2) still allows disclosure in the public interest [4].
• No journalism exemption: the Digital News Publishers Association has challenged the Act and Rules in the Supreme Court under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a). It says reporters, whistleblowers and RTI activists will be harmed [5].
• Unequal exemptions: the Centre can exempt its own agencies through a notification that needs no procedural safeguards [1].
• Weak Board independence: members serve two-year terms and can be reappointed. In Rojer Mathew (2019), the Court warned that such terms increase executive influence [1].

Way forward

• Exempt bona fide journalism from consent and erasure duties. The simplified compliance framework for start-ups shows such carve-outs are possible [6].
• Restore the public-interest test in RTI Section 8(1)(j).
• Give Board members a longer, single term, like the five years CCI members get [1].
• The Supreme Court could read down the law using the Puttaswamy proportionality test [1].

Privacy and transparency are two halves of one democratic bargain: private lives stay private, and public power stays visible. With limited exemptions for journalism and an independent Board, the DPDP framework can uphold both Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a). This would give effect to Puttaswamy's promise of dignity alongside an accountable State, in line with SDG 16.10.