SC notice to Centre on plea challenging amendment to RTI regime

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on the pleas challenging certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, over their amendment of the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

Petitioners sought a declaration that the substituted clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005—brought into force through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 —is unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi agreed to examine the matter, but declined to grant an interim stay on the provisions.

Separate petitions were filed by activist Venkatesh Nayak, the Reporters Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI). Advocates Vrinda Grover and Prashant Bhushan represented the petitioners before the bench.

During the hearing, the bench said that the issue was "complex but interesting" and touched upon the fundamental rights of both sides. The bench said that some ironing out of the creases might be needed to strike a balance. 

Bhushan submitted that an application for stay has also been filed. However, the bench made it clear that there won't be any stay of the legislation.

It was contended the Act lacked surgical precision in its attempt to protect privacy and instead of using a chisel (the legislature), it has used a hammer, and thus rendered a body blow to the RTI.

The pleas claimed that the new data regime severely diluted the RTI Act and granted the Centre "sweeping powers" over personal data. The petitioners claimed, the DPDP Act created a blanket bar on the disclosure of personal information, effectively dismantling the transparency framework established by the RTI Act.

With the amendment, the frontline adjudicatory authorities who actually determined RTI applications no longer possessed any statutory jurisdiction to apply public interest balancing in cases involving personal information, the pleas pointed out.