Right to Privacy vs. Right to Information
Context:
The Supreme Court has agreed to refer a batch of petitions to a Constitution Bench to determine if Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 unconstitutionally restricts the Right to Information (RTI) Act
The Legal Conflict of Section 8(1)(j) & Section 44(3)
The petitioners argued that Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which governs the disclosure of personal information held by public authorities.
Original Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act (2005):
This provision exempted the disclosure of personal information unless the Public Information Officer (PIO) was satisfied that the larger public interest justified the disclosure.
It required a balancing act between privacy and transparency.
Section 44(3) of DPDP Act (2023):
This section amends Section 8(1)(j) to impose a "blanket ban" on the disclosure of any personal information, effectively removing the "public interest" override.
By removing the public interest override, petitioners argue this grants the government "unguided discretion" to deny RTI applications concerning public officials (e.g., appointments, procurement records, audit reports) simply by labeling them as "personal information".
2017 Puttuswamy Judgement:
The judgement mandates that any restriction on fundamental rights must satisfy the 'proportionality test'.
The state must prove that its law has a legitimate aim, employs the "least restrictive measure" possible to achieve that and includes procedural safeguards against abuse.
The petitioners argue the DPDP Act fails this threshold.
Central Public Information Officer vs. Supreme Court of India, 2019
A five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy are not absolute and must be balanced.
Proportionality Test:
The Court established that personal information could be disclosed if it passed the "proportionality test," meaning the invasion of privacy must be necessary and proportionate to the larger public interest served.
Critics argue the DPDP Act reverses this ruling by prioritizing the privacy of public functionaries over the public's right to know, potentially shielding state actions from scrutiny.