New Delhi: The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, has long been a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, empowering citizens to hold public authorities accountable by accessing critical information. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, has sparked widespread concern for undermining this landmark legislation. At the heart of the controversy lies Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, introducing a blanket exemption on disclosing “personal information.” This change has ignited fierce opposition, with over 120 Members of Parliament (MPs) from the INDIA bloc, civil society activists, and legal experts demanding its repeal.
Understanding the RTI Act and Its Significance
Enacted in 2005, the RTI Act revolutionized transparency in India by granting citizens the right to access information held by public authorities. It has been instrumental in uncovering corruption, exposing policy failures, and ensuring accountability. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act originally allowed exemptions for personal information unless its disclosure served a larger public interest or was related to public activity. Additionally, a critical provision ensured that information available to Parliament or state legislatures could not be denied to citizens, reinforcing the democratic principle of equal access to information.
The RTI Act’s impact cannot be overstated. From revealing irregularities in welfare schemes to exposing mismanagement in infrastructure projects, it has empowered journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens to demand answers. However, amendments introduced through the DPDP Act threaten to erode this hard-won transparency.
The DPDP Act 2023 and Section 44(3): A Controversial Amendment
Passed by Parliament in August 2023, the DPDP Act aims to regulate the collection, storage, and processing of personal data while balancing individual privacy with lawful data processing needs. The legislation emerged in response to the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, which recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. While the DPDP Act was intended to safeguard personal data, its Section 44(3) has raised alarm for altering the RTI framework.
Section 44(3) replaces Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act with a simplified clause: “information which relates to personal information.” This amendment removes the public interest test and the provision ensuring parity between citizens and legislators. As a result, public authorities can now deny access to any information classified as “personal,” regardless of its relevance to public accountability or interest. The vague definition of “personal information” further exacerbates the issue, granting authorities broad discretion to withhold data.
Opposition’s Outcry: A “Draconian” Blow to Transparency
On April 10, 2025, leaders of the INDIA bloc, a coalition of opposition parties, held a joint press conference in New Delhi to demand the immediate repeal of Section 44(3). The coalition, including prominent figures like Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi, CPI(M)’s John Brittas, Shiv Sena (UBT)’s Priyanka Chaturvedi, and Samajwadi Party’s Javed Ali Khan, submitted a memorandum signed by over 120 MPs to Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw. The letter, endorsed by Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, described the amendment as a “surreptitious, mischievous, and malicious attempt” to undermine the RTI Act.
Gaurav Gogoi highlighted the practical implications, stating, “If you want to know which contractor was awarded tenders for bridges that collapsed in Bihar, this Act will prevent you from accessing that information.” He labeled the amendment’s impact as “draconian,” arguing that it stifles investigative journalism and citizens’ rights. John Brittas, a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) that reviewed the DPDP Bill, emphasized that the opposition had raised concerns during the legislative process, but these were ignored. “The RTI Act was a milestone in India’s democratic journey. With one stroke, the government has dismantled it,” he said.
Priyanka Chaturvedi accused the government of steering the nation from the “right to information” to the “road to ignorance.” She noted that earlier versions of the DPDP Bill in 2019 and 2021 did not include such provisions, suggesting that the 2023 amendment was a deliberate move to curb transparency. Javed Ali Khan added that the government’s pattern of weakening the RTI Act—first through amendments in 2019 and now via the DPDP Act—reflects its aversion to public scrutiny.
Constitutional Balance: Privacy vs. Transparency
The tension between privacy and transparency lies at the core of this debate. The Supreme Court’s 2017 Puttaswamy judgment affirmed privacy as a fundamental right but emphasized the need for a proportionality framework to balance it with transparency. The court ruled that restrictions on either right must be justified, necessary, and the least restrictive means available. This principle was already embedded in the RTI Act’s Section 8(1)(j), which allowed personal information disclosure in cases of public interest.
The Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner (2012) case further clarified this balance. While prioritizing privacy, the Supreme Court noted that information could be disclosed if it served the public interest. Similarly, the Justice A.P. Shah Committee (2012) cautioned against allowing data protection laws to override RTI access rights. The Srikrishna Committee (2018), which laid the groundwork for the DPDP Act, recommended narrow exemptions for non-disclosure, such as cases involving grave harm like identity theft or discrimination.
Critics argue that Section 44(3) disrupts this delicate balance by granting blanket exemptions without requiring justification. The vague definition of “personal information” risks misuse, as authorities could classify critical data—such as tender documents or corporate submissions—as private, shielding governance from scrutiny.
Ashwini Vaishnaw’s Defense and Its Shortcomings
In response to the opposition’s concerns, Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw defended the DPDP Act, asserting that it aligns with the Puttaswamy judgment’s privacy principles and the RTI Act’s transparency goals. In a letter dated April 10, 2025, responding to Congress MP Jairam Ramesh’s earlier missive, Vaishnaw claimed that personal information subject to disclosure under existing laws, such as those governing public representatives or welfare programs like MGNREGA, would remain accessible. He cited Section 3 of the DPDP Act, which exempts publicly available data from the Act’s restrictions.
However, critics, including the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), have dismissed Vaishnaw’s defense as misleading. Section 3, they argue, is irrelevant to the RTI amendment, as it applies only to data already in the public domain. The core issue—Section 44(3)’s removal of the public interest test and the proviso—remains unaddressed. IFF’s Apar Gupta labeled Vaishnaw’s logic as “circular,” noting that the RTI Act determines what information becomes public in the first place. By amending it, the DPDP Act preemptively restricts access.
Civil Society and Expert Concerns
Beyond political opposition, civil society groups, RTI activists, and legal experts have voiced alarm. Activists like Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, and Anjali Bhardwaj have warned that Section 44(3) could turn the DPDP Act into a “new Official Secrets Act,” enabling authorities to hide governance behind the pretext of privacy. The amendment’s timing—passed during discussions on Manipur violence in August 2023—has fueled accusations of legislative opacity.
The Justice A.P. Shah Committee’s 2012 report explicitly warned against prioritizing data protection over RTI rights. The Srikrishna Committee’s 2018 recommendations, which influenced the DPDP Act, advocated for limited exemptions to protect against specific harms. By ignoring these expert insights, Section 44(3) risks undermining over a decade of judicial and policy deliberation.
Implications for Public Accountability and Press Freedom
The amendment’s broad exemptions threaten public accountability. For instance, citizens may no longer access details about public officials’ decisions, such as contract allocations or policy justifications, if deemed “personal.” This could shield corruption and mismanagement, as seen in cases like the Bihar bridge collapses, where RTI requests have historically exposed irregularities.
Press freedom is also at risk. Investigative journalists rely on RTI to uncover stories of public interest, from financial scams to environmental violations. By restricting access to information, Section 44(3) could stifle such reporting, eroding the media’s role as a watchdog. Priyanka Chaturvedi warned that the DPDP Act imposes heavy fines on data fiduciaries, including journalists, further threatening press freedom.
The Road Ahead: Calls for Repeal and Legal Recourse
The INDIA bloc has vowed to escalate its campaign, with MPs indicating they may seek legal recourse if the government does not repeal Section 44(3). The DPDP Act, though passed in August 2023, awaits full implementation pending the notification of its rules, expected by mid-2025. This delay offers a window for activists and opposition leaders to push for amendments.
Civil society groups are mobilizing public support, with campaigns like #SaveRTI gaining traction on social media. The opposition’s memorandum, backed by 120 MPs, reflects a growing consensus that the amendment undermines democratic principles. As Jairam Ramesh noted in his March 23, 2025, letter to Vaishnaw, the Puttaswamy judgment does not necessitate amending the RTI Act, as privacy and transparency are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
Conclusion
The controversy over Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act underscores a critical challenge facing India’s democracy: balancing privacy with transparency. While the DPDP Act aims to protect personal data, its amendment to the RTI Act threatens to dismantle a vital tool for accountability. The opposition’s unified demand for repeal, backed by legal precedent and expert recommendations, highlights the urgency of revisiting this provision. As India navigates its digital future, ensuring that data protection complements—rather than undermines—transparency will be essential to preserving democratic values.
FAQs
What is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023, and how does it affect the RTI Act 2005?
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, replacing it with a clause that exempts all “personal information” from disclosure. Unlike the original RTI provision, which allowed disclosure if it served the public interest or was related to public activity, the new rule imposes a blanket ban. It also removes the proviso ensuring that information available to Parliament or state legislatures cannot be denied to citizens, significantly weakening transparency and public accountability.
Why are opposition MPs demanding the repeal of Section 44(3)?
Over 120 MPs from the INDIA bloc argue that Section 44(3) undermines the RTI Act by restricting access to critical information. They describe it as a “draconian” and “malicious” attempt to shield governance from scrutiny, impacting citizens’ ability to hold public officials accountable. Leaders like Gaurav Gogoi and Priyanka Chaturvedi warn that it could hide corruption and hinder press freedom, pushing India toward a “road to ignorance.”
How does the amendment affect the balance between privacy and transparency?
The RTI Act originally balanced privacy and transparency by allowing personal information disclosure in cases of public interest, as supported by the Supreme Court’s K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment and the Justice A.P. Shah Committee (2012). Section 44(3) disrupts this balance by granting broad exemptions without requiring justification, potentially allowing authorities to misuse the vague definition of “personal information” to withhold data.
What are the practical implications of Section 44(3) for citizens and journalists?
The amendment could prevent citizens from accessing information about public officials’ decisions, such as contract allocations or policy justifications, if deemed “personal.” For journalists, it restricts RTI-based investigations, limiting their ability to uncover corruption or mismanagement. This threatens public accountability and press freedom, as highlighted by opposition MPs and civil society groups like the Internet Freedom Foundation.
What actions are being taken to address concerns about Section 44(3)?
The INDIA bloc has submitted a memorandum signed by 120 MPs to Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, demanding the repeal of Section 44(3). Civil society campaigns, such as #SaveRTI, are raising public awareness, and MPs are considering legal recourse. With the DPDP Act’s rules yet to be notified (expected by mid-2025), there’s a window for advocacy to restore the RTI Act’s original provisions.
