Right to Privacy Vs. Right to Information Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Vinson Prakash*
The RTI Act has always faced pressure from those in positions of power and authority. But now its very existence has come under threat because of the recent amendments in the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. These amendments have created loopholes to allow the denial of information in the name of protecting privacy. We try to unravel the problem and its legal and operational aspects through these FAQs
Q1. What is the Right to Information (RTI)?
The spirit of the Right to Information (RTI) is that citizens MUST know their government. It is a cornerstone of democracy that grants every citizen the right to know what is happening behind the scenes—from how public money is spent to why a decision was made. It keeps our leaders and bureaucrats relatively honest, accountable, and a little less comfortable.
The Indian Constitution frames it under Article 19(1)(a) as a fundamental right to speech and expression. The Right to Information Act, 2005, gives every Indian citizen the right and a roadmap to request information from the government. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but overall, it is a powerful tool to obtain information and promotes transparency.
Q2. Why should I care about the RTI?
RTI gives ordinary citizens the power to act as watchdogs. Almost ANY information can be requested—as long as it is held by a public authority or a government-regulated body. This includes: reports, memos, contracts, records, models, documents, and anything on a computer or in the government files.
Think of it this way: we, the people, have a social contract with the government—we follow the laws, pay our taxes, and contribute to society. In return, we expect freedom, equality, safety, a modicum of social security, and a healthy society. RTI lets us check whether that contract is being honoured—whether public money is being spent wisely, citizens are getting their entitlements, decisions are being made fairly, and officials are doing their jobs.
Q3. What is the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is India’s landmark law on digital data privacy. It tries to strike a balance between an individual’s right to privacy and the need for companies or the government to use that individual’s personal data for legitimate reasons. It establishes a framework to ensure that the personal data is protected and processed lawfully.
Q4. How is RTI under threat?
In 2023, the DPDP Act was the Trojan horse used by the Centre to demolish one of the RTI Act’s main pillars: disclosure of some personal information in wider public interest. Section 44(3) of DPDPA amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to prohibit the disclosure of any personal information.
Previously, the RTI Act allowed public authorities to disclose personal information if it served a larger public interest or did not result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The amendment introduced through the DPDP Act has stripped Section 8(1)(j) of both these safeguards. It removes the public interest exception and the unwarranted invasion of privacy test, effectively barring the disclosure of any personal information, regardless of its saliency to public interest or democratic oversight.
Q5. What is the main problem?
The DPDPA wants to protect a citizen’s personal data from misuse. The RTI Act stands in its way by allowing any Indian citizen to seek the personal information of any person, held in any form, by a public authority. In privacy’s eyes, if the individual whose data is being sought did not consent to its disclosure, the disclosure could subject the individual to surveillance, may reveal information the individual considers private, and could cause the individual physical, financial, or mental harm. The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttasamy v. The Union of India (2018) highlights that “knowledge about a person gives a power over that person”1 . These are the some of the considerations that the DPDPA takes into account to outlaw the disclosure of any personal information.
Q6. How does the DPDP Act affect journalism and public interest disclosures?
The DPDP Act threatens severe sanctions against individuals, journalists and the press who are engaged in investigative journalism or are seeking/sharing personal information in public interest. A journalist or a citizen seeking to expose a corrupt government official or contractor must now obtain permission from the very individual implicated in the malfeasance before sharing the exposé. Even if information on miscreants within the government is obtained through any source - such as emails, informers, anonymous tips and so on - that information is obsolete as it cannot be shared with the public. If one does expose malfeasance by disseminating personal information, they can be hit with a fine ranging from Rs. 50-250 crores under the DPDP Act.
Journalistic activity is exempted from data protection laws in many countries; however, no such exemption exists in the DPDP Act despite its 2019 draft, named the ‘Personal Data Protection Bill’, exempting journalistic activity from almost all of its provisions.
Q7. Doesn’t everyone deserve privacy—even public servants?
Certainly! Privacy is a right. But, when you are in a position of public trust, or a government authority, and make decisions that affect the lives and liberties of others—you become accountable to the people of the country. Besides, RTI is not asking about your private life, it is asking how you were appointed, how you discharged your duties, how you spent public money, and how you made decisions on others’ behalf—all matters of public concern.
Q8. Should we do away with the data protection law?
Of course not. A strong data protection law is absolutely essential. In today’s digital world, where our digital doubles are being created and our personal information is constantly being tracked, traded, and sometimes exploited by both tech giants and the government, privacy needs to be a legal guarantee.
The DPDPA gives real teeth to the fundamental right to privacy. Modelled after the European General Data Protection Regulation and other Western data protection laws, it lays down a comprehensive framework to protect your data. But while protecting privacy, the DPDPA also takes a bite out of the RTI. The amendment it makes to the RTI Act blocks access to all personal information—even when there’s a clear public interest. That’s not balance. That’s overcorrection.
So yes, we do need a robust data protection law—but not one that protects your bank details while shielding corrupt officials from scrutiny. The Right to Privacy and the Right to Information can–and must–coexist. When they collide, the law must ensure that any restriction imposed by one does not disproportionately crush the other.
Q9. How to decide what a proportional restriction is?
In a legal context, the principle/doctrine of proportionality is the standard used to resolve conflicts between competing fundamental rights.
In Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016), the Supreme Court laid out a four-part test to determine proportionality2 . A restriction on a fundamental right is permissible if:
- The restriction has a legitimate purpose.
- The measure used to enact such a restriction is rationally connected to the fulfilment of that purpose.
- The undertaken measures are necessary and no other measure can achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of restriction.
- The benefits of the purpose outweigh the harm caused to the competing right.
Q10. Can the RTI and the right to privacy be balanced?
The right to information protects citizens from being misgoverned and the right to privacy protects citizens’ data from being misused. Both are fundamental rights granted by our Constitution, and neither should steamroll the other.
The clash between them should be resolved through the principle of proportionality. The principle asks: Is the amendment needed? What is being achieved here? Is this restriction fair? Can it be done through any other means? And is there a balance between what’s being protected and what’s being given up?
Moreover, in K.S. Puttasamy v. Union of India (2018) the Supreme Court expressly laid down the circumstances in which the right to privacy can be restricted. The judgement states that the right to privacy, subject to the principle of proportionality, can be restricted when it is in imbalance with other fundamental rights AND when public interest justifies the restriction.
Notably, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was already a qualified exemption. The principle of proportionality was already upheld. Personal information was only disclosed when it served a larger public interest— outweighing the right to privacy of the individual.
The amendment brought in by the DPDPA entirely disregards the principle of proportionality. Now, any COMMON CAUSE | Vol. XLIV No. 2 April-June, 2025 | 7 information that even hints at being “personal” is off limits, no matter how important it might be for public accountability
Q11. What is public interest? How is it determined, and by whom?
As the name itself suggests, public interest, simply put, is what the people want, need, or deserve in order to exercise and enjoy their constitutional rights and freedoms. A fulfilled public interest enriches democracy and adds to the greater good of society.
When it comes to the right to know, public interest is not what the people want to know; it is what they need to know in order to uphold democratic values, demand accountability, and protect their rights. In CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subash Chandra Agarwal (2019), Justice Sanjiv Khanna aptly said that “public interest in access to information refers to something that is in the interest of the public welfare to know.”3 Justice N.V. Ramana further emphasized that “the right to information and right to privacy are at an equal footing. There is no requirement to take a priori view that one right trumps other.”4
To decide whether public interest warrants the disclosure of information, Indian courts, Information Commissions, and public authorities use a public interest test on a case-by-case basis. This test is repeatedly used by courts and is reiterated in judgments of K.S. Puttasamy and Subash Chandra Agarwal. The test weighs factors such as: the nature of the information, the purpose of seeking disclosure, whether the information relates to public duties or private life, potential harm to the individual if disclosed, and whether the public benefit from disclosure outweighs that harm. The test thereby allows authorities to do their due diligence before deciding whether the disclosure serves the greater good or just the one asking for it.
The DPDPA amendment dropping the public interest proviso from the RTI Act raises the question: Whose interest is the law serving?
Q12. What does the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) lead to?
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) shields corrupt and/or incompetent government officials from taking accountability for their actions/omissions, pulls a screen over government spending and dispensation of public money, and allows politicians to hide their stakes in private businesses/interests. The government has gained a right to deny information and the public are in the dark about the government officials and the system which presides over them. Information such as educational qualifications, government contractors, financial assets, service and travel records, and exam scores are unattainable due to the recent amendment.
Q13. Did requesting personal information do any good before the amendment?
Yes, RTI requests seeking personal information have been instrumental in protecting the land from corruption. RTI activists revealed malpractices such as: Air India swapping airliners to suit VIP politicians5 , IAS officers taking lavish vacations on public money6 , and Chief Ministers being allotted bungalows they rarely used in Delhi7 —amongst thousands of other cases of corruption/malpractices.
Q14. What are the main challenges?
Public authorities have often been the prime opponent of the RTI Act. The Act was pushed up by civil society groups, activists, and ordinary citizens demanding the right to know. The government caved under public pressure and years of advocacy by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) and other groups in 2005.
However, the moment it was passed, some of those in authority got busy trying to clip its wings. In 2006, they tried to bring about a set of amendments barring the disclosure of file notings and cabinet papers (even if a decision has been made). Once again, citizens and civil society rallied against these amendments. In 2019, the government succeeded in bringing the Central and State Information Commissioners under its thumb. It gained the power to dictate the Commissioners’ tenure, salaries, and other terms of service, curtailing the latter’s independence to operate without fear or favour. It began appointing its own persons as Commissioners who guard the information from the people who have the right to know8 .
The attempts didn’t stop. The DPDPA is just the latest attempt. Appointment of Information Commissioners are delayed endlessly—Jharkhand, for instance, hasn’t had an Information Commissioner since 2020! Public authorities don’t comply with Section 4(2) of the RTI Act which requires them to proactively disclose information. There is an extensive backlog of appeals, and online RTI portals barely work, if at all present.
Q15. Is anyone fighting to save the RTI Act?
Yes, there is resistance and it is growing. Over 30 civil society organisations have joined hands and are resisting the calculated siege of the RTI Act.
The prime proponents of the Act, The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, have launched a petition, seeking a rollback on the recent amendment to reconstruct the pillar of Section 8(1)(j) without any cracks. The petition can be accessed through https://bit.ly/4mHGyGO
Civil society delegates have raised the issue with the leader of the Opposition, and subsequently, 120 MPs from the India Bloc have raised the alarm and have called for a repeal of the amendment.
The fight against devitalisation of the RTI Act is not just a legal battle. It is a fight to restore the cornerstone of democracy—the right to know and the right to ask questions.
References
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 10 SCC 1, 2017.
- Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 7 SCC 353, 2016.
- Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal . 16 SCC 1, 2019.
- Tripati, A. (2012, February 21). AI changed aircraft for minister’s kin. Deccan Herald. https://bit.ly/46r9RYF
- Victor, H. (2024, April 11). Chandigarh: 3 IAS officers blew `6.72 lakh excess on Paris tour, reveals audit. Hindustan Times. https://bit.ly/46ww9s6
- Upadhyay, A. (2021, June 8). These nine chief ministers got bungalows in Lutyens’ Delhi, Rti reveals. India Today. https://bit.ly/44Ova5c
- Joshi, M. (2023, November 7). New CIC appointed: Procedure to power, here’s All you need to know: Explained. News18. https://bit.ly/3IHCEyn
NEXT »
