Model Answer

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 amends provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) framework relating to disclosure of personal information. This raises a constitutional question: how should a democracy balance transparency with the right to privacy?

RTI flows from Article 19(1)(a) — citizens’ right to know — which enables accountability, participatory governance, and anti-corruption oversight. Conversely, informational privacy is protected under Article 21 as affirmed in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017), which recognised privacy as intrinsic to dignity and liberty. Therefore, neither transparency nor privacy is absolute; both require harmonisation through proportionality.

Earlier Legal Position (Before Amendment)

Under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act:

• Personal information could be denied only if it had no relation to public activity, and
• Even then, disclosure was allowed if larger public interest outweighed privacy harm.

Thus, authorities and Information Commissions applied a balancing test.

Practical outcome:

• Citizens could access information about: a. assets of public servants b. beneficiaries of welfare schemes c. recruitment processes d. use of public funds

This strengthened accountability and exposed corruption.

Position After DPDP Amendment The amendment removes the public-interest balancing mechanism and allows denial of information merely because it is “personal”. Consequences

• Weakening accountabilityMany governance activities involve personal data (names, designations, payments, beneficiaries). Blanket denial can shield:
• ghost beneficiaries
• favouritism in recruitment
• misuse of public money

Executive discretion increases Authorities may reject requests without demonstrating harm, undermining reasoned decision-making.

Chilling effect on RTI regime Citizens, journalists, and civil society may be unable to investigate governance failures.

Potential constitutional concerns

Restriction on Article 19 must be reasonable and proportionate

Unequal disclosure standards violate Article 14

Privacy of public officials may override public accountability

Need for Balance: Privacy is Also Important

However, unrestricted disclosure is problematic because:

personal addresses, medical records, or family details of officials deserve protection

data misuse and harassment risks exist

digital governance increases vulnerability to identity theft

Thus, privacy protection is legitimate — but over-correction can damage democracy.

Way Forward

A reconciliatory framework is required:

• Restore public interest override in disclosure
• Apply proportionality test (nature of information, role of person, harm vs benefit)
• Issue clear guidelines for Information Commissions
• Differentiate public officials vs private individuals
• Allow anonymisation instead of denial wherever possible

The RTI regime represents the citizen’s power to question the State, while data protection safeguards individual dignity. A constitutional democracy cannot sacrifice one for the other. The objective should be privacy-respecting transparency, not secrecy in the name of privacy. Only a balanced framework can preserve both accountability and fundamental rights.