Refuting claims of legal dilution. Attorney-General R. Venkataramani has issued a written opinion asserting that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, does not undermine or “dilute” the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The original report can be found at: https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_international/issues/165465/OPS/GO5FCS9JG.1+GPRFDVVRF.1.html
Clarifying the scope of the new law. The opinion clarifies that the DPDP Act is intended to provide a legal framework that balances individual privacy with the public’s right to know, rather than creating a wall of secrecy.
Contextualizing the implementation timeline. While much of the DPDP Act has a 12-18 month rollout, the specific amendment to the RTI Act was notified by the Centre in November 2025.

Source

Highlighting the specific legislative change. Critics and transparency advocates are concerned about the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which previously allowed for the disclosure of personal information under certain conditions.
Addressing concerns of a “total exemption.” Advocates argue that turning a partial exemption into a broader one allows government bodies to blanket-deny requests for information that involves any personal data.
Focusing on accountability. Transparency groups fear that without the original nuance of Section 8(1)(j), holding public officials accountable for their actions might become significantly more difficult.

Invoking Section 8(2) as a safeguard. The A-G’s opinion hinges on Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which remains unamended and fully operational.
Prioritizing public interest over harm. This section mandates that even exempted information must be disclosed if the “public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”
Ensuring a legal safety net. By pointing to Section 8(2), the legal opinion suggests that the core spirit of transparency in the RTI Act remains intact and legally superior in critical cases.

Adhering to Supreme Court mandates. The A-G noted that the DPDP Act fulfills the requirements set by the Supreme Court in the landmark Puttaswamy case, which recognized privacy as a fundamental right.
Striking a constitutional balance. The legal framework is designed to ensure that neither the right to privacy nor the right to information completely overrides the other.
Legalizing data protection. The opinion suggests that the DPDP Act provides the necessary “legal basis” for processing and protecting data that was previously handled in a legal vacuum.

Reviewing the original conditional exemption. Previously, Section 8(1)(j) exempted personal info only if it had no relationship to public activity or caused an “unwarranted invasion of privacy.”
Analyzing the removal of the proviso. The older version also included a proviso that information which cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen; critics are wary of how its removal affects parity.
Clarifying administrative authority. Under the old rules, PIOs (Public Information Officers) had to be “satisfied” that a larger public interest justified disclosure, a discretionary power that is now being re-evaluated.

Denying any reduction in accountability. The Centre maintains that the DPDP Act strengthens the overall legal architecture without sacrificing the government’s duty to be transparent.
Justifying the harmonized approach. Government sources argue that the amendment was necessary to remove ambiguities that often led to litigation between privacy seekers and information seekers.
Providing a modernized framework. The state views the DPDP Act as a modernization effort to bring Indian law in line with global standards like the GDPR.

Warning against bureaucratic misuse. Transparency activists worry that lower-level officials will use the simplified exemption to reflexively deny requests without considering the “public interest” override.
Impact on anti-corruption efforts. Critics argue that personal information regarding public servants’ assets or performance is vital for exposing corruption and should not be easily shielded.
Fearing a “chilling effect.” There is a concern that the new rules will discourage citizens from filing RTIs if they believe the odds of receiving meaningful data have diminished.

Shifting the burden of proof. With the new amendment, the initial hurdle for a citizen to prove “public interest” before an officer may become steeper in practice.
Relying on appellate authorities. The role of the State and Central Information Commissions will likely become even more critical in interpreting how Section 8(2) should be applied to the new DPDP context.
Monitoring departmental responses. Experts will be watching how different ministries interpret the “total exemption” vs. the “public interest” balance in the coming months.

Formalizing the right to be forgotten. The DPDP Act gives individuals more control over how their data is stored and used by the government, a shift the A-G considers a positive evolution.
Preventing unwarranted data leaks. One goal of the new law is to stop the accidental or unauthorized public release of sensitive citizen data via RTI responses.
Standardizing data fiduciary roles. Government bodies are now categorized as “Data Fiduciaries,” placing a higher legal burden on them to protect the data they hold.

Anticipating judicial review. Given the friction between these two landmark Acts, the Supreme Court may eventually be asked to provide a definitive interpretation of the RTI-DPDP intersection.
Defining “Public Interest” in the digital age. Future rulings will need to clarify what specifically constitutes a “public interest” large enough to override the new, stricter privacy protections.
Evolving with technological changes. As more government data becomes digitized and automated, the legal definitions of “personal information” and “public activity” will continue to be tested.

DPDP Act & RTI Transparency Balance Quiz

Instructions

Total Questions: 15

Time: 15 Minutes

Each question has 5 options. Multiple answers may be correct.

Time Left: 15:00