The petition submitted that Part 44(3) has amended Part 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act to facilitate public authorities to blankly refuse data on the bottom that the small print sought are of a “private” nature.
| Picture Credit score: Particular association
A 3-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant would hear a petition filed by human rights and transparency activist Venkatesh Nayak, represented by advocate Vrinda Grover, who has challenged Part 44(3) of the Digital Private Information Safety (DPDP) Act of 2023.
The petition submitted that Part 44(3) has amended Part 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act to facilitate public authorities to blankly refuse data on the bottom that the small print sought are of a “private” nature. It mentioned the supply has turned the basic proper to privateness on its head. The correct, meant to guard strange residents towards state incursion, has been prolonged to guard the state and public functionaries from RTI disclosures.
Initially, the RTI provision had exempted authorities from disclosing private data to an applicant if the small print sought had no relationship to any public exercise or if disclosure would quantity to unwarranted invasion of privateness. Even then, the federal government needed to disclose if public curiosity outweighed privateness. The choice whether or not or to not reveal ‘private data’ was taken by a Public Data Officer or the First Appellate Authority below the RTI Act after completely weighing privateness and transparency issues.
“The Constitutional consequence is fast and critical. Each RTI software involving identifiable public officers, procurement data, audit experiences, appointment recordsdata, utilisation of public funds, or train of statutory discretion can now be denied robotically on the bottom that it ‘pertains to private data’. The balancing mechanism that ensured proportionality has been dismantled. The exemption operates as an irrebuttable bar on the first gate. This isn’t a minor statutory adjustment; it’s a structural alteration of the decision-making structure of the RTI Act,” the Nationwide Marketing campaign for Folks’s Proper to Data (NCPRI), represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued in a separate petition filed within the apex courtroom.
The petition represented by Ms. Grover mentioned the modification launched by the DPDP Act accorded “unguided discretion to the Government to disclaim private data, which is unconstitutional”.
“It’s an unreasonable restriction on the best below Article 19 (proper to free speech). Privateness just isn’t a elementary proper out there to the state. It violates Article 14 (proper to equal remedy) by equating the privateness of public functionaries to that of strange residents. It inverts the jurisprudence of privateness vis-à-vis the best to data and prioritises privateness over the bigger public curiosity of transparency and open governance,” Mr. Nayak’s petition argued.
It contended that the modification to Part 8(1)(j) of the RTIAct, when learn at the side of the definition of the time period ‘private information’ within the DPDP Act, has introduced inside its fold “all data which even remotely pertains to the identification of a person, and renders the best to data illusory” and sounded the loss of life knell for participatory democracy in addition to being ruinous to concepts of open governance.
The pleas additionally challenged provisions of the DPDP Guidelines, 2025, which offer the Government dominance within the formation of search-cum-selection committees for the appointment of the chairperson and members of the Information Safety Board in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Equally, the legislation permits the Centre to name for any data with none statutory steerage or limitation from the Information Board of Information Fiduciaries, making it manifestly arbitrary. In addition to, it has supplied penalties with none statutory steerage on what constituted a “important” information breach.
A senior IT Ministry official had no fast touch upon the petitions. Three different petitions with the same prayer are in numerous levels of being filed, however the petitioners — a media publication, two activists, and one other transparency organisation — refused to remark earlier than the matter was taken up by the courtroom.
Revealed – February 14, 2026 10:04 pm IST
Leave a Reply