Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response on Pleas Challenging DPDP Act, RTI Amendments

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana considered submissions that the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act upsets the constitutional balance between the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy.

She argued that under the previous framework, information could be withheld only if it had no relationship with any public activity or public interest and its disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

According to the petitioners, those safeguards have now been removed, with "all personal information" effectively becoming exempt from disclosure.

Grover submitted that the amendment directly affects the constitutional balance previously recognised by the Supreme Court between the citizen's right to know and the individual's right to privacy.

"The right of citizens to be informed about important public issues is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a)," she argued, relying on earlier Supreme Court precedents governing RTI and privacy.

The petitioners further contended that the amendment extends beyond protecting genuinely private information and could potentially allow authorities to deny access to information concerning public officials, public functions and matters involving public interest merely by classifying such information as "personal."

Addressing another aspect of the challenge, Senior Advocate Nisha Bhambani argued that the DPDP Act could significantly impede investigative journalism.

She submitted that the legislation does not carve out any specific exemption for journalists and that investigative reporting involving personal data could become contingent upon obtaining consent from the concerned individual.

Ambani further argued that journalists could even face requests for erasure of data from individuals whose information forms part of investigative reports, thereby adversely affecting press freedom and investigative journalism.

Chief Justice Surya Kant observed during the hearing that a balance has to be maintained between the right to privacy and the public's right to information.

The petitioners, however, maintained that the DPDP framework tilts that balance disproportionately in favour of privacy, affecting transparency in governance.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan also challenged the amendment, arguing that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, where the Court harmonised the competing claims of privacy and transparency.

Bhushan submitted that while the original Section 8(1)(j) exempted only personal information unrelated to public activity or public interest, the amended provision effectively shields all personal information, enabling authorities to deny access even to information relating to pending charge sheets against public officials or records connected with welfare schemes.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while the RTI Act and the DPDP Act operate in different spheres, they also overlap in certain respects, requiring the Court to examine whether both legislations coexist harmoniously.

He further remarked that the Court would consider whether there exists an intelligible differentia for treating digital personal data differently and whether the DPDP Act indirectly overrides the RTI Act by creating a wider embargo on disclosure.

Responding to the Bench's observations, Bhushan argued that the amendment is not confined to digital personal data but fundamentally alters the RTI framework itself.

Justice Bagchi also noted that the Court would examine whether the State's more cautionary approach towards disclosure satisfies the constitutional test of reasonable classification and whether a blanket restriction on disclosure of digital personal information can be justified.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, sought two weeks' time to file the Centre's response and assured the Bench that the government would justify the legislative amendments.

Accepting the request, the Supreme Court directed the Union to file its reply and ordered that the matter be listed before an appropriate non-miscellaneous Bench for further hearing.