Supreme Court Questions Government on Controversial RTI Amendments

The Supreme Court has called upon the Indian government to respond to petitions challenging recent amendments to the Right to Information Act, which critics claim weaken transparency by removing essential public interest safeguards. The amendments, part of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, have sparked concerns over the balance between privacy rights and the public's right to know. Legal experts argue that the changes could hinder investigative journalism and limit access to vital information. The court is set to review the government's response in the coming weeks, as the debate over privacy and transparency continues to unfold.

By Narendra Chaudhary Aug 7, 2026, 16:18 IST

Supreme Court Seeks Government's Stand on RTI Changes

New Delhi: On Friday, the Supreme Court requested the Centre to respond to a series of petitions challenging the amendments made to the Right to Information (RTI) Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, heard arguments from senior advocate Vrinda Grover and advocate Prashant Bhushan before directing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, to submit the Centre's response.

The petitions argue that the amendments undermine transparency by eliminating the public interest safeguard for the disclosure of personal information.

Specifically, the petitions contest the modification of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which pertains to exemptions regarding the disclosure of personal data.

The amendment, enacted through Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act in 2023, alters the handling of personal data and privacy exemptions in government information requests.

This change removes essential qualifiers and the 'larger public interest override' clause, broadly exempting personal information from public disclosure.

Proponents of the law argue that it does not hinder legitimate transparency but instead aligns the RTI framework with the fundamental right to privacy.

Vrinda Grover, representing one of the petitioners, stated that the amendment modifies the previous provision by eliminating safeguards that balanced privacy concerns with the public's right to access information.

Previously, Section 8(1)(j) exempted personal information from disclosure unless it was related to public activity or interest. However, information could still be disclosed if a larger public interest justified it.

Grover emphasized that the challenge is specifically against the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI, which previously included built-in safeguards regarding the nature of personal information that could be withheld. Those safeguards have now been removed.

She pointed out that the removal of the 'public interest' qualifier means that personal data is now exempt from disclosure without any balancing exercise, thereby excluding a wide range of information protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Chief Justice noted that some balancing must be considered regarding the type of digital personal data that requires protection.

The Solicitor General informed the bench that the Centre would submit its reply within two to three weeks.

Advocate Nisha Ambani, representing an intervenor, argued that the amendments could have serious repercussions for investigative journalism.

The Chief Justice remarked that a balance must be struck with the right to privacy, while Bhushan reiterated that the balance between the right to information and the right to privacy had already been established by the Supreme Court in a prior ruling.

Citing a judgment authored by former Justices DY Chandrachud and NV Ramana, Bhushan highlighted that the court recognized both the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy as fundamental rights, asserting that the original RTI Act maintained a careful balance between them.

He explained that the former Section 8(1)(j) only exempted personal information that had no connection to public activity or interest, or whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Bhushan argued that this balance has now been disrupted, as the amendment categorizes all personal information as exempt from disclosure.

He further stated that the amendment could lead to the denial of access to critical information, such as pending charge sheets against public officials or details related to welfare schemes and ration cards, simply because they could be classified as personal information.

The bench indicated it would review the Centre's response before proceeding further. Earlier, on February 16, the bench had issued notices regarding the petitions.

However, the Supreme Court declined to grant an interim stay on the contested provisions, stating that an interim order would not obstruct a regime established by Parliament until the case is heard.