Fri Jan 09 17:16:08 UTC 2026: # Attorney-General Claims Data Protection Act Does Not Dilute Right to Information

The Story:
India’s Attorney-General R. Venkataramani has issued a written opinion stating that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, does not undermine the Right to Information Act, 2005, despite concerns raised by civil society groups and transparency advocates. These groups argue that the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which concerns exemptions for disclosing personal information, significantly reduces governmental transparency. The Attorney-General argues that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still mandates the disclosure of exempted information when public interest outweighs harm. The Union government notified the RTI amendment in November 2025.

Key Points:

  • The Attorney-General of India, R. Venkataramani, asserts the DPDP Act, 2023, does not dilute the RTI Act, 2005.
  • Civil society groups contend that amending Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has weakened transparency.
  • R. Venkataramani highlights Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which allows disclosure if public interest outweighs harm.
  • The Union government notified the RTI amendment in November 2025, implementing it faster than other parts of the DPDP Act.
  • The amendment removed language from Section 8(1)(j) that previously allowed for the disclosure of personal information if a larger public interest justified it, drawing criticism from transparency activists.

Critical Analysis:

The rapid implementation of the RTI amendment, in contrast to the staggered rollout of other DPDP Act components, raises questions about the government’s priorities. The Attorney-General’s emphasis on Section 8(2) suggests a strategy to mitigate public concerns regarding transparency, but the removal of specific language previously safeguarding information disclosure leaves room for interpretation and potential limitations on access to information. The historical context reveals concerns from various groups, including media and persons with disabilities, about the DPDP Act’s impact, indicating a broader struggle to balance data protection with other rights and freedoms.

Key Takeaways:

  • The government maintains the DPDP Act does not undermine the RTI Act, citing existing provisions for public interest disclosures.
  • Civil society remains skeptical, emphasizing the weakening of specific safeguards for information access.
  • The early implementation of the RTI amendment suggests a deliberate prioritization by the government.
  • The interpretation of “public interest” in Section 8(2) will likely be a key battleground for future transparency disputes.

Impact Analysis:

This event has significant long-term implications for access to government information in India. The ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of “public interest” will likely lead to increased litigation and judicial scrutiny of RTI requests. The concerns voiced by various groups about the DPDP Act’s impact on privacy and freedom of expression suggest a continued need for dialogue and potential further amendments to address these issues. Ultimately, the balance between data protection and transparency will depend on how these laws are implemented and interpreted in practice.

Read More