The Right to Information and the Right to Privacy in India:

1. Introduction

This report undertakes an analysis of the intricate and often conflicting relationship between the statutory Right to Information (RTI), as established under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the fundamental Right to Privacy, judicially recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Both rights represent cornerstone principles within the Indian democratic framework. The RTI Act serves as a critical instrument for promoting transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, thereby empowering citizens and helping to contain corruption.¹ Concurrently, the Right to Privacy safeguards individual dignity, autonomy, and the liberty to make personal choices free from unwarranted intrusion.⁴

The intersection of these two rights generates significant legal and constitutional challenges, particularly when information sought under the RTI Act pertains to personal data held by government entities. This conflict necessitates a careful balancing act to uphold both transparency and individual liberty. This report will delve into the legislative framework governing RTI, the constitutional interpretation of privacy, the evolution of judicial thought through landmark precedents, the impact of recent legislative amendments, and the potential future trajectory concerning the equilibrium between these vital rights. The analysis relies exclusively on authoritative legal sources, including constitutional provisions, statutes, and judicial pronouncements.

The structure of this report proceeds as follows: Section 2 defines the scope and objectives of the RTI Act and the fundamental Right to Privacy under Article 21. Section 3 identifies the primary areas of conflict and frames the core legal issues. Section 4 traces the judicial evolution in balancing these rights, analyzing key cases such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commr. Section 5 outlines the current legal position, with a focus on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act prior to recent amendments. Section 6 examines the implications of the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Section 7 discusses future prospects and ongoing debates. Finally, Section 8 provides concluding remarks, followed by a compilation of authoritative citations in Section 9.

2. Defining the Rights

2.1. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Scope and Objectives

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter “RTI Act”) was enacted by the Parliament of India with the stated objective of providing a “practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities”.³ Its enactment on October 12th, 2005, marked a significant development in empowering the common citizen.³

The core objectives underpinning the RTI Act are multi-faceted: to empower citizens, foster transparency and accountability in governmental operations, act as a deterrent against corruption, and ultimately, to ensure that India’s democracy functions effectively for its people.¹ The preamble explicitly links an informed citizenry and transparency to the healthy functioning of democracy and the accountability of governments.³ An informed citizenry is considered better equipped to monitor governance and hold public authorities accountable.¹

Constitutionally, the Right to Information is often traced back to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.⁸ The Supreme Court recognized this linkage even prior to the Act’s enactment, holding that the right to know is implicit in the freedom of speech.¹⁰ Some interpretations also connect RTI implicitly to the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21, particularly where information access relates to life, health, or livelihood.⁸

The scope of ‘information’ accessible under the Act is defined broadly in Section 2(f). It encompasses any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, and data material held in electronic form, provided it is held by or under the control of a public authority.² The right includes inspection of works and documents, taking notes or certified copies, obtaining certified samples, and receiving information in electronic formats.² Notably, information relating to private bodies that can be accessed by a public authority under any other prevailing law also falls within the Act’s ambit.²

The Act establishes a mechanism for accessing information, designating Public Information Officers (PIOs) to receive and process requests, First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) for appeals against PIO decisions, and Central and State Information Commissions as apex adjudicatory bodies.³ It mandates proactive disclosure of key information by public authorities under Section 4, aiming to reduce the need for specific requests.¹⁰ Section 6 outlines a simple procedure for requesting information, requiring no reason from the applicant ⁸, while Section 7 prescribes timelines for response, generally 30 days, or 48 hours if concerning life or liberty.¹⁰

However, the Right to Information is not absolute. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act delineate specific exemptions.¹⁰ Section 8(1) lists grounds for exemption, including information disclosure that would prejudicially affect India’s sovereignty and integrity, national security, strategic, scientific or economic interests; information forbidden by a court or tribunal; information causing breach of parliamentary privilege; commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm competitive position (unless public interest warrants disclosure); information available in a fiduciary relationship (unless public interest warrants disclosure); information received in confidence from foreign governments; information endangering life or physical safety; information impeding investigation or prosecution; cabinet papers (with exceptions); and crucially for this report, personal information covered under Section 8(1)(j).¹⁰ Section 24 exempts certain intelligence and security organizations from the Act’s purview, subject to exceptions related to corruption and human rights violations.¹⁸

Significantly, Section 22 of the RTI Act grants it an overriding effect over any inconsistencies in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, or any other law for the time being in force.¹⁰ This provision underscores the legislative intent to prioritize transparency over pre-existing secrecy regimes.

2.2. The Fundamental Right to Privacy under Article 21

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.²⁰ While the Constitution does not explicitly enumerate a “Right to Privacy,” the Supreme Court of India, through progressive interpretation, has firmly established it as a fundamental right intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.⁴

The journey towards this recognition was gradual. Early landmark cases presented a conflicting picture. In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), an eight-judge bench, while dealing with search and seizure powers, observed that the Indian Constitution did not specifically protect a right to privacy analogous to the US Fourth Amendment.⁶ Subsequently, in Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1962/1963), a six-judge bench majority reiterated that privacy was not a guaranteed constitutional right, although it struck down intrusive police surveillance regulations as violative of ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21.⁵ Justice Subba Rao’s dissenting opinion in Kharak Singh, however, argued forcefully that personal liberty included privacy.⁷

Despite these initial rulings, subsequent decisions by smaller benches began carving out space for privacy within Article 21. Gobind v. State of MP (1975) acknowledged privacy as potentially emanating from Articles 19(1)(a), (d) and 21, and introduced the ‘compelling state interest’ test as a basis for permissible intrusion.²⁷ R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (1994), known as the Auto Shanker case, explicitly linked the right to privacy to Article 21, particularly concerning the unauthorized publication of a person’s life story, though it noted an exception for matters of public record.²³ In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997), the Court recognized a privacy interest in telephone communications, holding that telephone tapping constituted a serious invasion of privacy under Article 21 unless sanctioned by a just, fair, and reasonable procedure established by law.⁴

The definitive moment arrived with the unanimous nine-judge bench decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India (2017).⁴ This landmark judgment arose from challenges to the Aadhaar biometric identification scheme.⁷ The Court unequivocally declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right, protected as an “intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”.⁷ It explicitly overruled the contrary observations in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh.⁷

The Puttaswamy court deeply connected privacy to human dignity and individual autonomy, viewing it as essential for self-determination and the ability to make fundamental personal choices.⁴ Privacy was interpreted expansively, encompassing not merely the right ‘to be let alone’ ⁶, but extending to the integrity of the body and mind, personal information, individual choices, sexual orientation, family life, and decisional autonomy.⁶

Crucially, the Court clarified that the Right to Privacy, like other fundamental rights, is not absolute.⁴ Any state intrusion upon privacy must satisfy a stringent test of proportionality. This test requires that the intrusion must: (i) have a basis in Legality (be sanctioned by a valid law); (ii) serve a Legitimate State Aim (pursue a necessary and recognized state objective); and (iii) adhere to Proportionality (demonstrate a rational nexus between the objective and the means adopted, ensuring the means are necessary and the least intrusive measure, and that a balance is struck between the extent of the intrusion and the importance of the state aim).⁴ Some formulations also explicitly include the need for procedural safeguards against abuse.⁴⁶ The Court emphatically rejected the argument that privacy is an “elitist construct” that should yield to socio-economic welfare objectives, affirming its importance for all individuals regardless of status.⁷

The Puttaswamy judgment now serves as the foundational constitutional framework for assessing any law or state action that potentially infringes upon the Right to Privacy, including disclosures mandated or exempted under the RTI Act.

The common constitutional wellspring of both RTI and Privacy, primarily Article 21, highlights their fundamental importance but also sets the stage for inherent conflict. RTI, linked to Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, empowers citizens with information necessary for exercising their liberty within a participatory democracy.⁸ Privacy, declared an intrinsic part of Article 21, protects the personal autonomy and dignity essential to that liberty.⁴ When RTI requests target personal information held by the government – a vast repository of citizen data ²⁴ – the state’s duty to promote transparency clashes directly with its duty to protect individual autonomy and control over personal information.⁴ This pits one facet of constitutionally protected liberty against another, demanding a delicate balancing act.

3. The Conflict Zone: RTI vs. Privacy

3.1. Identifying Inherent Tensions and Challenges

The core conflict between the RTI Act and the Right to Privacy arises from their opposing operational dynamics: RTI mandates disclosure of information held by public authorities to promote transparency ¹, whereas privacy fundamentally seeks to protect personal information from unwarranted public exposure and intrusion.⁴ This tension becomes most acute when RTI applications target personal data concerning individuals – be they government employees, beneficiaries of schemes, or other third parties – which is inevitably collected and stored by state entities in the course of governance.²⁴

Government records are replete with personal details, ranging from service records of employees (including performance assessments, disciplinary actions, postings), financial information (salaries, tax returns, assets), health records, details of welfare scheme beneficiaries, personal identifiers like Aadhaar numbers, and private communications intercepted or stored under law.⁴ The disclosure of such information carries the potential for “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual,” the specific concern addressed by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.¹³

A significant challenge lies in delineating the boundary between the public and private spheres of individuals, especially public officials. Information pertaining to the discharge of public functions is legitimately subject to RTI scrutiny for accountability purposes. However, such information often contains personal elements (e.g., names, specific actions, performance details).¹⁶ The argument advanced in cases like Girish Ramchandra Deshpande – that the performance and conduct of a public servant are primarily matters between the employer and employee and thus inherently “personal” ³⁰ – stands in direct tension with the public’s right to know how public functions are being carried out and by whom.

The RTI Act incorporates a procedure for handling requests involving third-party information under Section 11, requiring consultation with the third party before disclosure.¹⁸ However, this procedural step does not resolve the substantive conflict with the third party’s right to privacy.⁵⁶ Section 8(1)(j) also explicitly serves to protect the privacy of third parties whose personal information might be contained in government records.⁶²

The proliferation of digital technologies exacerbates these tensions. Governments increasingly collect, store, and process vast amounts of personal data electronically, magnifying the scope and potential impact of disclosures under RTI.⁴ High-profile data breaches from government portals further underscore the sensitivity and vulnerability of this data, intensifying privacy concerns.⁴

Furthermore, the potential for misuse exists on both sides. The RTI Act can be weaponized to harass public officials by targeting their personal information through repeated or intrusive requests.¹⁰ Conversely, the shield of privacy can be invoked illegitimately by officials seeking to evade scrutiny of their public actions, conceal corruption, or avoid accountability for maladministration.¹⁹

This dynamic nature of the conflict is noteworthy. Initially, the struggle for information access was primarily framed as a battle against governmental secrecy, often embodied by the Official Secrets Act, 1923.³ The principal objective was to make the government accountable. However, particularly following the Puttaswamy judgment’s elevation of privacy to a fundamental right and the increasing digitization of personal data, the conflict has significantly shifted. It is now more frequently characterized as a clash between the public’s right to transparency and the individual’s fundamental right to privacy.⁴ This evolution alters the legal calculus, moving away from simply overriding statutory secrecy towards the more complex task of balancing competing fundamental rights and values, demanding a more rigorous justification for disclosures impacting privacy, often through the lens of proportionality.⁶

3.2. Framing the Core Legal and Constitutional Issues

The intersection of RTI and privacy gives rise to several fundamental legal and constitutional questions:

1. Hierarchy and Balancing: When a fundamental right (Privacy under Article 21) conflicts with a statutory right that itself emanates from fundamental rights (RTI linked to Article 19(1)(a) and implicitly Article 21), how is the conflict resolved? Is there a hierarchy, or must the rights be balanced? If balanced, what principles govern the balancing exercise?.¹³
2. Interpretation of RTI Exemptions (Sec 8(1)(j)): How should the key terms within Section 8(1)(j) – “personal information,” “public activity or interest,” “unwarranted invasion of privacy,” and “larger public interest” – be interpreted, especially after privacy attained fundamental right status? How does the judicially mandated proportionality test interact with the specific tests laid out in this statutory exemption?.¹⁹
3. Impact of Puttaswamy on Precedent: How does the Puttaswamy judgment, with its affirmation of fundamental privacy and the proportionality test, affect the validity and interpretation of earlier precedents like Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, which dealt with Section 8(1)(j) before privacy’s elevation?.³⁰
4. Legislative Harmony and Competence: Can subsequent legislation, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, legitimately amend the RTI Act in a manner that curtails access to information previously deemed disclosable under the established balancing framework? How should new data protection regimes be constitutionally harmonized with existing transparency laws to avoid undermining fundamental rights?.³⁵
5. Defining ‘Public Interest’: What constitutes ‘public interest’ in the context of information disclosure, and how should it be weighed against fundamental privacy rights, particularly under the proportionality standard mandated by Puttaswamy?.⁵⁶

Addressing these issues requires navigating the complex interplay between constitutional guarantees, statutory provisions, and evolving judicial doctrines.

4. Judicial Navigation: Balancing Transparency and Privacy

4.1. Historical Development and Evolving Judicial Trends (Pre-Puttaswamy)

The Indian judiciary played a crucial role in laying the groundwork for the Right to Information even before the enactment of the RTI Act in 2005. In landmark cases such as State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975) and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court recognized the citizen’s ‘right to know’ as implicit within the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).¹⁴ This early jurisprudence emphasized the importance of information access for democratic functioning.

Simultaneously, the judicial understanding of privacy under Article 21 was evolving, albeit hesitantly at first. As discussed previously (Section 2.2), the initial denial of privacy as a distinct fundamental right in M.P. Sharma and the majority view in Kharak Singh ⁶ gradually gave way to its recognition in specific contexts. Cases like Gobind v. State of MP (1975) ²⁷, R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (1994) ²³, and PUCL v. Union of India (1997) ⁴ progressively acknowledged facets of privacy related to surveillance, personal life details, and communications as falling within the ambit of Article 21.

In the period before the definitive Puttaswamy judgment, courts faced the challenge of balancing these emerging rights – the statutorily codified RTI and the judicially evolving right to privacy – often without a clear constitutional framework for privacy itself. The R. Rajagopal case, for instance, acknowledged a right to privacy concerning personal life stories but significantly limited this right where information was already part of public records, suggesting that privacy claims diminish for publicly available data.²³

When adjudicating RTI requests involving personal information, courts and Information Commissions primarily relied on the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The central question was often whether the disclosure served a ‘public interest’ substantial enough to outweigh the privacy concerns articulated in the section, interpreted mainly through the statutory language itself rather than a fundamental rights analysis of privacy.⁷⁰ This led to the significant, albeit controversial, decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012) ¹⁹, which heavily influenced the interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) in the pre-Puttaswamy era.

4.2. Landmark Case Analysis

The following table summarizes key judicial milestones relevant to the RTI-Privacy intersection:

Table 1: Landmark Cases Summary

Case Name & Citation	Year	Bench	Key Facts (Brief)	Core Issue(s) re: RTI/Privacy	Judgment Summary & Key Principles Established	Significance/Impact on RTI-Privacy Balance
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra	1954	8	Challenge to search and seizure powers.	Whether Indian Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to privacy (analogous to US 4th Amendment).	Held: Constitution does not specifically protect the right to privacy.6	Established the initial judicial position denying a distinct fundamental right to privacy.
Kharak Singh v. State of UP	1963	6	Challenge to police surveillance regulations (domiciliary visits).	Whether surveillance violated fundamental rights (Art 19(1)(d), Art 21); Whether privacy is part of personal liberty.	Majority: Privacy not a fundamental right, but domiciliary visits violated personal liberty under Art 21.5 Dissent (Subba Rao J): Personal liberty includes privacy.7	Reinforced denial of privacy as fundamental right (majority), but dissent paved way for future recognition. Struck down specific intrusive measures.
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.	1994	2	Publication of prisoner’s autobiography (‘Auto Shanker’ case).	Right to privacy vs. freedom of press; publication of personal life details.	Held: Right to privacy implicit in Art 21 (“right to be let alone”).23 Unauthorized publication of private life violates privacy. Exception: Matters of public record can be published.16	Explicitly linked privacy to Art 21. Distinguished between private life and public records, setting a limit on privacy claims regarding publicly available information. Influential pre-Puttaswamy privacy jurisprudence.
PUCL v. UoI	1997	2	Challenge to telephone tapping provisions.	Whether telephone tapping violates privacy under Art 21.	Held: Telephone conversation privacy is part of Art 21.4 Tapping permissible only under procedure established by law (must be fair, just, reasonable).16	Recognized privacy interest in communications. Emphasized procedural safeguards for intrusions into privacy.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC	2012	2	RTI request for public servant’s service records (memos, punishments, assets, ITRs).60	Interpretation of “personal information” under RTI Act Sec 8(1)(j); Balancing RTI access and employee privacy.	Held: Service records, performance details, ITRs are “personal information” under Sec 8(1)(j).30 Disclosure unrelated to public activity/interest, causes unwarranted invasion of privacy.61 Burden on applicant to prove ‘larger public interest’ for disclosure.61 Request denied.61	Highly influential pre-Puttaswamy ruling on Sec 8(1)(j). Interpreted ‘personal information’ broadly regarding public servants. Widely cited to deny information.60 Criticized for potentially shielding officials and questionable reasoning post-Puttaswamy.30
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. UoI	2017	9	Challenge to Aadhaar scheme led to reference on status of privacy right.7	Whether Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.	Unanimously Held: Privacy is a fundamental right intrinsic to Art 21 and Part III.6 Overruled M.P. Sharma, Kharak Singh.7 Linked to dignity, autonomy.5 Not absolute; subject to restrictions via proportionality test (legality, legitimate aim, proportionality/necessity).4	Landmark judgment establishing privacy as a fundamental right. Provided the constitutional framework (proportionality) for evaluating all privacy intrusions, including those potentially arising from RTI disclosures. Elevated privacy claims significantly.
CPIO, SC vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal	2019	5	RTI request for judges’ asset declarations held by CJI.56	Applicability of RTI to CJI office; Balancing judicial independence, transparency, and judges’ privacy under Sec 8(1)(j).	Held: CJI office is a public authority under RTI.64 Asset info disclosable. Applied Sec 8(1)(j) balancing test, considering ‘larger public interest’.56 Referenced Puttaswamy proportionality test as the standard for balancing.54 Distinguished privacy and confidentiality.56	Demonstrated application of Sec 8(1)(j) balancing test post-Puttaswamy framework, even for high constitutional functionaries. Emphasized case-by-case balancing and proportionality. Contrasted with Girish Deshpande‘s approach. Showcased judiciary applying transparency norms to itself.

4.2.1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India (2017)

As detailed in the table, this unanimous nine-judge bench decision fundamentally reshaped Indian privacy jurisprudence. By declaring privacy an intrinsic part of Article 21 and the freedoms under Part III, it provided a robust constitutional basis for privacy claims.⁷ Its significance lies not only in overruling earlier contrary precedents but also in articulating the philosophical underpinnings of privacy, linking it inextricably to human dignity and autonomy.⁵ The judgment’s adoption of the proportionality test (legality, legitimate aim, proportionality/necessity) established a clear, albeit demanding, standard for the state to meet whenever its actions impinge upon privacy.⁴ This test became the crucial lens through which potential conflicts between state objectives (like transparency via RTI) and individual privacy must be evaluated.

4.2.2. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commr. (2012)

This two-judge bench decision dealt directly with an RTI request for a public servant’s personal and service-related information.⁶⁰ The Court’s ruling, upholding the denial under Section 8(1)(j), characterized service records, performance details (memos, punishments), and financial information (ITRs, assets) as “personal information” primarily concerning the employer-employee relationship, disclosure of which bore no relation to public activity or interest and would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.³⁰ While acknowledging the ‘larger public interest’ exception, the Court found the petitioner had not established its applicability.⁶¹ This judgment became a widely invoked precedent by public authorities to refuse information about officials.⁶⁰ However, its broad interpretation of “personal information” in the context of public service and its pre-Puttaswamy timing have led to significant criticism regarding its potential to shield officials from accountability and its questionable legal standing after privacy was declared a fundamental right requiring proportionality analysis.³⁰

4.2.3. CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)

Decided after Puttaswamy (though arguments predated the final DPDP Act), this case involved RTI requests concerning the judiciary itself, specifically judges’ asset declarations.⁵⁶ The five-judge bench affirmed that the CJI’s office falls under the RTI Act.⁶⁴ Crucially, while acknowledging judicial independence concerns, the Court held that asset information was disclosable, explicitly engaging in a balancing exercise between transparency (public interest) and privacy (judges’ rights) under Section 8(1)(j).⁵⁶ The Court explicitly referenced the Puttaswamy proportionality test as the guiding standard for this balancing act.⁵⁴ It distinguished between the broader right to privacy under Article 21 and the concept of confidentiality, indicating that privacy claims require constitutional scrutiny under the proportionality framework.⁵⁶ This case provides a significant example of the post-Puttaswamy approach, favouring nuanced balancing over blanket exemptions, even in sensitive contexts.

The continuing citation of Girish Deshpande by authorities presents a legal anomaly post-Puttaswamy. Girish Deshpande‘s rationale, focusing on the employer-employee dynamic to label service records as ‘personal’ and placing the onus on the applicant to prove ‘public interest’ ⁶¹, appears insufficient to meet the rigorous justification demanded by the Puttaswamy proportionality test. Puttaswamy requires the state (the entity infringing privacy through potential disclosure) to demonstrate that the infringement is lawful, necessary, least restrictive, and proportionate to a legitimate aim.⁷ Girish Deshpande did not apply this standard. The Subhash Chandra Agarwal decision, by contrast, explicitly invoked Puttaswamy and engaged in balancing public interest against privacy ⁵⁴, suggesting that the Girish Deshpande approach of broad denial based on the ‘personal’ nature of service records may no longer represent the correct legal position, even setting aside the subsequent DPDP Act amendment.

4.3. Judicial Trends Post-Puttaswamy

Following the Puttaswamy judgment, judicial trends indicate a heightened awareness of privacy as a fundamental right when interpreting RTI provisions:

• Proportionality as Standard: Courts increasingly recognize the proportionality test as the appropriate standard for evaluating privacy infringements arising from RTI disclosures.⁵⁴
• Section 8(1)(j) Reinterpreted: While Section 8(1)(j) remains the focal point for resolving RTI-privacy conflicts, its interpretation is now necessarily filtered through the prism of fundamental privacy rights, demanding a more rigorous justification for disclosure that impacts privacy.¹³
• Complex Balancing: The task for courts and Information Commissions has become more complex, requiring a careful weighing of the fundamental right to privacy against the statutory (yet constitutionally rooted) right to information. The concept of ‘larger public interest’ within Section 8(1)(j) serves as the fulcrum for this balance, guided by constitutional principles of proportionality.¹³
• Privacy Not Absolute: Courts continue to affirm that privacy is not absolute. In conflicts with other significant rights, such as the right to a fair trial, privacy may have to yield if necessary for justice, as seen in cases involving access to evidence for matrimonial disputes.¹³
• Emerging Concepts: The recognition of related concepts like the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ as an aspect of privacy adds another layer of complexity, potentially conflicting with the principle of open access to public records, including court records.⁷⁹

5. The Current Legal Standpoint

5.1. Established Principles for Balancing RTI and Privacy (Pre-DPDP Act Amendment)

Prior to the amendment introduced by the DPDP Act, 2023, the legal framework for balancing RTI and privacy rested on several key principles derived from the Constitution, the RTI Act itself, and judicial interpretations, particularly post-Puttaswamy:

1. Constitutional Supremacy: The fundamental Right to Privacy, embedded in Article 21, formed the paramount consideration. Provisions of the RTI Act, including its exemptions, had to be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with this fundamental right.⁵⁶
2. Proportionality Test: Any denial of information under the RTI Act that resulted in an infringement of the Right to Privacy was required to satisfy the stringent proportionality test laid down in Puttaswamy. The state (public authority denying information) needed to demonstrate legality, a legitimate aim, necessity (least restrictive means), and overall balance between the aim and the infringement.⁵⁴
3. Case-Specific Balancing: Recognizing the contextual nature of both rights, the balance between transparency and privacy required assessment on a case-by-case basis.⁵⁶ Factors such as the nature of the information sought, the identity of the information seeker and the subject, the potential harm from disclosure versus the benefit to public interest, all needed consideration.⁵⁴
4. Statutory Public Interest Test: Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act itself provided the primary statutory mechanism for this balancing act. It explicitly allowed for the disclosure of personal information if the relevant authority (CPIO, SPIO, or Appellate Authority) was satisfied that the “larger public interest” justified overriding the privacy concern.¹³
5. Burden of Justification: While the RTI Act framework often implicitly placed the burden on the applicant to demonstrate ‘larger public interest’ to overcome an exemption ⁶¹, the Puttaswamy judgment’s principles suggested that the burden should ideally lie with the state authority to justify the restriction on the right to information (linked to Article 19(1)(a)) by proving the privacy infringement was proportionate. This created a point of legal tension.

5.2. Interpretation and Application of RTI Exemptions: Focus on Section 8(1)(j) post-Puttaswamy (Pre-DPDP Amendment)

Section 8(1)(j) was the most critical provision governing the disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act before its amendment in 2023. Its text exempted:

“information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any…source of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.” ¹³

Interpreting this section after Puttaswamy involved several considerations:

• “Personal Information”: The term needed to be understood in light of the fundamental right to privacy. While Girish Deshpande offered a broad interpretation encompassing service records ⁶¹, a post-Puttaswamy analysis would necessitate considering whether the information truly falls within the protected sphere of privacy or pertains more to public functions and accountability. Information regarding the discharge of public duties, even if involving names or specific actions, might warrant disclosure for accountability, potentially challenging the Girish Deshpande rationale.¹⁹ CIC decisions often mandated disclosure of qualifications or attendance records of public servants.⁸¹ Caste details, though personal, could be disclosable if linked to public activities like reservation policy implementation.⁸¹
• “No Relationship to Public Activity or Interest”: This required assessing if the information pertained solely to the private realm or if it had a nexus with public functions, governance, or matters affecting the community.¹⁹ The performance of public duties itself is arguably a public activity.³⁰
• “Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy”: This phrase directly invoked privacy concerns and necessitated a proportionality assessment aligned with Puttaswamy. The invasion had to be “unwarranted,” implying a balancing exercise where the extent of privacy intrusion was weighed against the justification for disclosure.⁵⁶
• “Larger Public Interest”: This crucial override clause served as the statutory mechanism for balancing. Post-Puttaswamy, determining ‘larger public interest’ required considering constitutional values of transparency, accountability, and informed citizenry alongside the fundamental right to privacy.⁵⁶ The Subhash Chandra Agarwal case exemplified this, where the public interest in judicial accountability was weighed against judges’ privacy regarding asset declarations.⁵⁶
• Parliamentary Proviso: This proviso served as a vital benchmark: if information could not be denied to elected representatives in Parliament or State Legislatures, it could not be denied to a citizen.³⁰ This reinforced the principle of citizen sovereignty and acted as a check against arbitrary denials under Section 8(1)(j).

The ‘larger public interest’ test embedded within the original Section 8(1)(j) effectively functioned as the statutory operationalization of the ‘balancing’ component of the Puttaswamy proportionality test within the RTI framework. It mandated a comparative evaluation: weighing the benefits of disclosure (promoting transparency, ensuring accountability, informing the public) against the potential harm to individual privacy. By requiring authorities to be satisfied that the public interest justifies the disclosure, it necessitated the very balancing act that constitutional proportionality demands when fundamental rights collide. Consequently, the removal of this test by the DPDP Act amendment fundamentally altered the mechanism designed to apply constitutional proportionality principles to RTI requests concerning personal information, disrupting the previously established equilibrium.

6. Legislative Developments and Their Implications

Recent years have witnessed significant legislative changes impacting the RTI regime and its interface with privacy.

6.1. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019

This amendment primarily targeted Sections 13 and 16 of the original RTI Act, 2005, altering the terms of service for Information Commissioners at both the Central and State levels.⁸²

• Key Changes:

• Tenure: The fixed five-year tenure for the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) at the central level, and their state counterparts (SCIC/SICs), was removed. The amendment stipulated that their term of office would be “for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.⁸² Subsequent rules prescribed a three-year term.⁸⁶
• Salary and Service Conditions: The original Act equated the salaries and allowances of the Central CIC and ICs to those of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, respectively. State CICs/SCsICs and ICs were equated to Election Commissioners and the Chief Secretary of the state government, respectively. The amendment removed this statutory parity, empowering the Central Government to determine the salaries, allowances, and other service conditions for both Central and State commissioners.⁸²
• Pension Deduction: Provisions mandating a reduction in salary equivalent to any pension received for previous government service were removed.⁸³

• Government’s Rationale: The government justified these changes by arguing that the Election Commission (a constitutional body) and Information Commissions (statutory bodies) possessed different mandates and statuses, making the original parity inappropriate.⁸² It also cited the perceived anomaly of CIC decisions (equated to SC judges) being challengeable in High Courts and the need for explicit rule-making powers.⁸²
• Impact and Concerns: The amendments sparked widespread criticism regarding their impact on the independence of the Information Commissions.⁸² By vesting the power to determine tenure, salary, and service conditions in the Central Government, the amendments were seen as making Commissioners vulnerable to executive influence and pressure. Fears were raised that Commissioners might hesitate to issue orders unfavorable to the government, thereby weakening the enforcement of the RTI Act and eroding public trust.⁸⁴ The Central Government’s power to prescribe terms for State Commissioners was also criticized as undermining federal principles.⁸² The process of amendment, lacking public consultation and bypassing parliamentary committee scrutiny, was also flagged.⁸² While proponents suggested potential administrative efficiencies ⁸⁴, the overwhelming concern was the potential chilling effect on the independent functioning of these crucial oversight bodies.

6.2. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), 2023

Enacted in the wake of the Puttaswamy judgment, the DPDP Act, 2023 aims to establish a comprehensive legal framework for data protection in India.⁴ It applies primarily to the processing of personal data in digital form ⁹⁰ and introduces concepts like Data Principals (individuals whose data it is), Data Fiduciaries (entities processing data), Consent Managers, and a Data Protection Board for adjudication.⁴

• Amendment to RTI Act Section 8(1)(j): The most significant impact of the DPDP Act on the RTI regime comes via its Section 44(3), which substitutes the existing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.³⁷

• New Text: The amended Section 8(1)(j) now simply exempts: “(j) information which relates to personal information;”.⁷¹
• Key Deletions: This terse clause removes the crucial qualifiers present in the original section: the conditions that disclosure must have “no relationship to any public activity or interest” OR “would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual”. Most critically, it eliminates the explicit override clause: “UNLESS… the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”.⁴¹ The deletion also casts doubt on the applicability of the parliamentary proviso (information accessible to legislators must be accessible to citizens) in the context of personal information.⁴¹
• Analysis and Potential Effects:

• Impact on RTI-Privacy Balance: This amendment represents a fundamental shift. The government contends it strengthens privacy rights, aligns with Puttaswamy, and prevents misuse of RTI.⁹⁶ However, critics argue it creates a near-absolute or blanket exemption for any information deemed “personal,” thereby drastically weakening the RTI Act’s power to ensure transparency and accountability.³⁵
• Elimination of Public Interest Test: The removal of the “larger public interest” override is the most contentious aspect. This removes the primary statutory mechanism for balancing privacy against transparency.³⁵ Information crucial for public accountability (e.g., regarding assets, qualifications, potential corruption of officials) could now be withheld simply by labeling it “personal,” irrespective of the public interest involved.³⁵
• Conflict with Constitutional Balancing: By removing the explicit balancing test, the amendment appears to contradict the Puttaswamy mandate, which requires proportionality and balancing when fundamental rights (like privacy and information access) conflict.³⁷ It substitutes nuanced judicial/quasi-judicial balancing with a broad legislative exemption.
• Vagueness and Discretion: The lack of a precise definition of “personal information” within the amended clause grants wide discretion to public authorities to deny information, potentially shielding vast amounts of data from public scrutiny.³⁹
• Failure to Harmonize: Instead of harmonizing data protection with transparency, the amendment appears to create a direct conflict, prioritizing data privacy in a way that significantly curtails the established right to information.³⁵ This approach seems contrary to recommendations from expert committees (like Justice AP Shah and Justice Srikrishna) that emphasized careful balancing.³⁵

The following table contrasts the original and amended Section 8(1)(j):

Table 2: Comparison of RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) – Pre and Post DPDP Act, 2023 Amendment

Aspect	Original Section 8(1)(j) Text & Interpretation	Amended Section 8(1)(j) Text (via DPDP Act, 2023)	Key Changes & Potential Impact on RTI/Privacy Balance
Definition of Exempted Information	“information which relates to personal information…” 70	“information which relates to personal information;” 71	Definition remains broad (“personal information”). Lack of qualifiers in the amended version makes the exemption potentially wider.
Role of Public Activity/Interest	Exemption applied only if disclosure had “no relationship to any public activity or interest”.70 This required assessing the link to public functions/accountability.	Condition removed.	Removes the need for authorities to justify denial based on lack of connection to public activity. Information related to public activity but deemed “personal” can now be potentially withheld. Weakens transparency regarding public functions.
Role of “Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy”	Exemption applied if disclosure “would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual”.70 This required assessing the severity and justification of the privacy impact.	Condition removed.	Removes the need to assess whether the privacy invasion is “unwarranted.” Any disclosure of “personal information” might be denied, regardless of the degree of privacy intrusion or justification. Lowers the threshold for invoking the exemption.
Public Interest Justification/Override	Explicitly allowed disclosure if the authority “is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure”.70 This was the key balancing mechanism.	Override clause removed entirely.	Eliminates the statutory basis for balancing public interest (transparency, accountability) against privacy. Creates a near-absolute exemption for “personal information,” severely curtailing RTI’s scope. Seen as the most damaging change.41
Applicability of Parliamentary Proviso	Proviso stated: “information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”.30 Applied as a check on the exemption.	Proviso remains in Section 8(1) generally, but its applicability specifically to override the now-absolute personal information exemption in 8(1)(j) is highly questionable and likely negated by the substitution.41	Weakens a crucial safeguard that ensured parity between citizens and legislators regarding access to information, potentially allowing information accessible to Parliament to be denied to citizens if deemed “personal.”
Overall Scope of Exemption	Conditional exemption, requiring analysis of link to public activity/interest, degree of privacy invasion, and overriding public interest. Favored balancing.	Appears to be a blanket or near-absolute exemption for anything classified as “personal information.” Favors privacy protection significantly over transparency.	Drastically expands the scope of information that can be withheld, potentially shielding large amounts of data related to governance and public officials from scrutiny. Tilts the balance heavily against RTI.

A discernible pattern emerges when comparing judicial and legislative trends. The judiciary, particularly post-Puttaswamy, has moved towards establishing a framework based on constitutional principles, emphasizing nuanced balancing and proportionality when fundamental rights like privacy and information access conflict.⁷ In contrast, recent legislative actions appear to diverge from this path. The 2019 RTI amendments, by centralizing control over the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners, potentially compromised the independence of the adjudicatory bodies responsible for upholding the right to information.⁸² Subsequently, the DPDP Act’s amendment to Section 8(1)(j) removed the explicit statutory mechanism for balancing public interest against privacy, opting instead for a broad exemption.⁷¹ This legislative trend suggests a move towards greater executive control over the information flow and a potential reduction in transparency concerning personal information held by the state, contrasting with the judiciary’s focus on principled balancing.

7. Future Prospects and Ongoing Debates

7.1. Anticipated Legal Developments and Challenges

The legislative changes, particularly the DPDP Act’s amendment to RTI Section 8(1)(j), have set the stage for significant legal uncertainty and anticipated challenges:

• Constitutional Validity: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) faces likely constitutional challenges.³⁶ Arguments will likely center on whether the removal of the public interest test constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to information (derived from Article 19(1)(a)) and whether it violates the Puttaswamy mandate for proportionality and balancing when fundamental rights conflict. The effective removal of the parliamentary proviso’s application to personal information may also be contested as undermining democratic principles.
• Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court and High Courts will inevitably be called upon to interpret the amended Section 8(1)(j). Key questions include: Will the courts interpret “personal information” narrowly or broadly? Can the Puttaswamy proportionality test be read into the amended section despite the absence of the explicit public interest clause, perhaps through harmonious construction? Or will the courts defer to the legislative intent of creating a broader exemption?
• DPDP Rules and Implementation: The operational details of the DPDP Act, to be outlined in forthcoming rules, are crucial.⁸⁹ These rules, covering aspects like consent management, breach notification, and potentially clarifying definitions, could influence how the Act interacts with RTI in practice. The effectiveness and independence of the Data Protection Board (DPB) will also be critical.⁸⁹ Its relationship and potential jurisdictional overlaps with the Information Commissions need clarification.

7.2. The Evolving Balance Post-DPDP Act

The DPDP Act, especially its amendment to the RTI Act, signals a significant legislative recalibration, appearing to prioritize data privacy over transparency where personal information is concerned.³⁵ This has intensified the debate about the appropriate balance between these two rights.

There is a pressing need for genuine harmonization between the data protection objectives of the DPDP Act and the transparency goals of the RTI Act.³⁵ The current amendment seems to create conflict rather than synergy, potentially enabling opacity under the guise of privacy protection.

The public debate is vigorous, involving transparency activists, legal experts, opposition parliamentarians, and the government.³⁵ There are strong calls for the repeal or revision of Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act to restore the public interest balancing test in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.³⁹

The future equilibrium between RTI and privacy hinges on several factors: the outcome of constitutional challenges to the DPDP Act amendment, the specific content of the DPDP rules, the interpretive approach adopted by the judiciary, and the practical implementation by PIOs, Information Commissions, and the new Data Protection Board.⁹³ Strengthening proactive disclosure mechanisms under Section 4 of the RTI Act is also proposed as a means to enhance transparency and potentially mitigate some negative impacts of the Section 8(1)(j) amendment.³⁹

Beyond the legal text, the practical implementation on the ground remains a critical factor. The combination of potentially weakened Information Commissions due to the 2019 RTI amendments ⁸⁴ and the simplified, potentially blanket, ground for rejecting requests for personal information provided by the DPDP Act amendment ⁷¹ creates a significant risk. This synergy could lead to a substantial ‘implementation gap,’ where the actual flow of information is curtailed more severely than even a strict reading of the amended law might suggest. Authorities might default to denial citing the amended 8(1)(j), and less independent Commissions may lack the institutional fortitude to robustly challenge such denials, resulting in a chilling effect on transparency regardless of the theoretical possibilities of future judicial interpretation or balancing.

8. Conclusion

The relationship between the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the fundamental Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution is a complex and evolving area of Indian law. RTI was conceived to empower citizens and ensure governmental transparency and accountability, while privacy, definitively established as fundamental by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy, protects individual dignity and autonomy. The inherent conflict arises when demands for information under RTI target personal data held by the state.

Historically, the judiciary navigated this conflict by gradually recognizing privacy and interpreting RTI exemptions, notably Section 8(1)(j), which contained a crucial ‘larger public interest’ test for balancing disclosure against privacy invasion. Landmark cases like Puttaswamy established proportionality as the constitutional standard for any privacy infringement, while Subhash Chandra Agarwal demonstrated its application in the RTI context, suggesting a move towards nuanced, case-by-case balancing. The pre-Puttaswamy decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, however, provided a basis for broadly denying access to public servants’ personal information, a precedent whose validity became questionable post-Puttaswamy.

The current legal landscape is significantly altered by recent legislative interventions. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, raised concerns about the independence of Information Commissions by giving the Central Government control over their tenure and salaries. More drastically, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, removing the explicit public interest balancing test and qualifiers, creating what appears to be a near-blanket exemption for “personal information.”

This amendment disrupts the established mechanism for reconciling transparency and privacy, potentially undermining the RTI Act’s effectiveness as a tool for public scrutiny and accountability. It appears to diverge from the judicial trend favouring proportionality and balancing, tilting the scales significantly towards privacy protection, possibly at the expense of legitimate public interest in accessing information related to governance.

The future trajectory remains uncertain. The constitutionality of the DPDP Act’s amendment to RTI is likely to be tested in courts. The forthcoming rules under the DPDP Act and the operationalization of the Data Protection Board will further shape the landscape. Ultimately, achieving a sustainable equilibrium requires a framework that harmonizes these two vital rights, ensuring that the protection of personal data does not become a shield for opacity and that the quest for transparency respects individual dignity and autonomy. The ongoing debate underscores the critical need to preserve the integrity of both the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy as indispensable pillars of India’s constitutional democracy.

9. Authoritative Citations

Constitutional Provisions:

• Constitution of India, Article 14
• Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a)
• Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(d)
• Constitution of India, Article 19(2)
• Constitution of India, Article 19(6)
• Constitution of India, Article 21
• Constitution of India, Article 32
• Constitution of India, Article 51
• Constitution of India, Article 226

Statutes:

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 ¹⁸
• The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 ⁸²
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 ⁴
• Official Secrets Act, 1923 ³
• Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ¹⁶
• Information Technology Act, 2000 ²³

Cases (Supreme Court of India):

• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865 ¹⁵
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 ⁵
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 ⁵
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 ¹⁴
• R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 ²³
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 ⁴
• Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 294 ⁷⁰
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399 ⁷⁰
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 ³⁷
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1 ⁴
• Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 ³¹
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 ⁶
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39 ⁶
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Aadhaar-II), (2019) 1 SCC 1 ³¹
• Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 ¹⁵
• R.K Jain v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 794 ¹³

Cases (High Courts):

• IN RE: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine All 291 ¹³
• Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 221 ¹³
• Vinit Kumar v Central Bureau of Investigations and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155 ³¹

Reports/Committees (as referenced in snippets):

• Justice AP Shah Committee Report (Group of Experts on Privacy, 2012) ³⁵
• Justice BN Srikrishna Committee Report (Committee of Experts on Data Protection Framework, 2018) ⁴

Other Sources:

• Press Information Bureau (PIB), Government of India ⁹³
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948 ²⁶
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ²⁶

(Note: Citations primarily point to the source snippets containing the referenced information. Full legal citations for cases can be found through standard legal databases based on the case names and years provided.)

Works cited

1. Right to Information, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://rti.gov.in/
2. Objectives of RTI Act 2005, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://dpedbt.gov.in/otns/documents_upload/6332df6c6d22eObjectives_of_the_Act.pdf
3. Right to Information, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://cag.gov.in/uploads/media/Right-to-Information-Academike-20210223120533.pdf
4. From Constitutional Rights to Data Protection: Article 21 and Comparative Perspectives on Privacy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/From-Constitutional-Rights-to-Data-Protection-Article-21-and-Comparative-Perspectives-on-Privacy
5. Right to Privacy and Article19 and 21 of the Constitution – LegalOnus, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://legalonus.com/right-to-privacy-and-article19-and-21-of-the-constitution/
6. SCO Shorts: Right to Privacy – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sco-shorts-right-to-privacy/
7. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., accessed on April 16, 2025, https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/justice-ks-puttaswamy-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors
8. 2005 RTI ACT, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://rti.img.kerala.gov.in/rti/pdf/rtiact.pdf
9. INTERPLAY BETWEEN RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT by Shriya Awale, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.jlsrjournal.in/interplay-between-right-to-privacy-and-right-to-information-act-by-shriya-awale/
10. Right to Information – Notes for UPSC Indian Polity – BYJU’S, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/right-to-information-rti/
11. Objectives and Features of Right To Information Act, 2005 – Unacademy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/general-awareness/objectives-and-features-of-right-to-information-act-2005/
12. Right To Information Act – LegitQuest, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.legitquest.com/legal-guide/right-to-information-act
13. Interplay between Right to Information and Right to Privacy – SCC Online, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/11/20/interplay-between-right-to-information-and-right-to-privacy/
14. CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON RIGHT TO KNOW AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION – The Amikus Qriae, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://theamikusqriae.com/critical-analysis-on-right-to-know-and-right-to-information/
15. right to information and the judiciary: an analysis of indian courts’ interpretation of rti provisions – IJARST, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijarst.in/public/uploads/paper/835861738570238.pdf
16. Understanding the Right to Privacy (R2P) – Central Information Commission, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/2012/R2Privacy-Venkatesh.pdf
17. THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 – A HAND BOOK FOR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES Dr. Marri Channa Reddy Human Resource Development – MCRHRDI, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.mcrhrdi.gov.in/download/publications/RTI%20NEW%20BOOKS/2.The%20Right%20to%20information%20Act-A%20Handbook%20for%20Public%20Authorities-2021%20Ed.pdf
18. THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Last Updated, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://rti.gov.in/rti%20act,%202005%20(amended)-english%20version.pdf
19. Landmark judgments on Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-judgments-section-8-rti-act-2005/
20. Indian Supreme Court Declares the Right to Privacy a Constitutionally-Protected Fundamental Right, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://privacylaw.proskauer.com/2017/08/articles/international/indian-supreme-court-declares-the-right-to-privacy-a-constitutionally-protected-fundamental-right/
21. Article 21 in Constitution of India – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/
22. Justice KS Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. – Manupatra Academy, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_1044_2017
23. Right to Privacy in India – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/right-to-privacy/
24. Right to information vs right to privacy – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-information-vs-right-to-privacy/
25. India Puttaswamy 1 Joint judgment 2018 – Delaware Law School, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://delawarelaw.widener.edu/files/resources/indiaputtaswamy1jointjudgment2018.pdf
26. Surveillance and Privacy: A Ramification of Article 21. – International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijrrssonline.in/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Reviews%20and%20Research%20in%20Social%20Sciences;PID=2018-6-3-14
27. Journey of Right to Privacy and Indian Constitution – DY Patil Law College, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://law.dypvp.edu.in/Blogs/journey-of-right-to-privacy-and-indian-constitution
28. Right to Privacy, Evolution, Significance, Challenges – Vajiram & Ravi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/right-to-privacy/
29. Right to Information Vs Right to Privacy – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/right-to-information-vs-right-to-privacy/
30. The Supreme Court’s Misstep: How The Deshpande Case Fuels Information Denial Under RTI Act – IMPRI Impact And Policy Research Institute, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.impriindia.com/insights/supreme-courts-misstep-information/
31. Development of Privacy Rights in India | Burke’s Thoughts on Political Economy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/india/ideas-and-institutions/development-of-privacy-rights-in-india-or-burkes-thoughts-on-political-economy
32. Fundamental Right to Privacy – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-fundamental-right-to-privacy-case-background/
33. Challenges and Issues in India’s Legal Framework for the Right to Privacy in Cyberspace – Development Centre Research of Law & Scientific Publication – Universitas Lampung, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://jurnal.fh.unila.ac.id/index.php/fiat/article/download/2667/1961/12044
34. STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION: CRITICALLY STUDYING THE INDIAN SCENARIO, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/STRIKING-A-BALANCE-BETWEEN-RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY-AND-RIGHT-TO-INFORMATION-CRITICALLY-STUDYING-THE-INDIAN-SCENARIO.pdf
35. How Modi government is using data privacy as an excuse to cripple the Right to Information, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/in-the-news/how-modi-government-is-using-data-privacy-as-an-excuse-to-cripple-the-right-to-information
36. India’s 2023 Data Privacy Act: A Balancing Act or a Tilt Against Consumer Rights?, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indialegallive.com/laws-research-indepth/indias-2023-data-privacy-act-a-balancing-act-or-a-tilt-against-consumer-rights/
37. Section 44(3) of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 – Compass by Rau’s IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/section-44-3-digital-personal-data-protection-dpdp-act-2023/
38. PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL’ VIS-À-VIS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (INCLUDING RTI) Prof. M Sridhar Acharyulu – Bennett University, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.bennett.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Prof.-M-Sridhar-Acharyulu.pdf
39. Concerns Over the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023: Impact on the RTI Framework – ensure ias, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ensureias.com/blog/current-affairs/concerns-over-the-digital-personal-data-protection-dpdp-act-2023-impact-on-the-rti-framework
40. What is India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act? Rights, Responsibilities & Everything You Need to Know, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/what-indias-digital-personal-data-protection-dpdp-act-rights-responsibilities-everything-you
41. RTI Amendment via DPDP Act, 2023- Explained Pointwise |ForumIAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://forumias.com/blog/rti-amendment-via-dpdp-act-2023-explained-pointwise/
42. Provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 dilute the RTI Framework: MPs | Current Affairs | Vision IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://visionias.in/current-affairs/news-today/2025-04-14/polity-and-governance/provisions-of-the-digital-personal-data-protection-dpdp-act-2023-dilute-the-rti-framework-mps
43. Case Analysis of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017 …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://legalonus.com/case-analysis-of-k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india-2017-landmark-judgment-on-right-to-privacy/
44. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (I) – Global Freedom of Expression, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/puttaswamy-v-india/
45. India’s Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right—and It’s About Time | Electronic Frontier Foundation, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/indias-supreme-court-upholds-right-privacy-fundamental-right-and-its-about-time
46. Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/constitution-of-india/justice-ks-puttaswamy-retd-v-union-of-india-2019-1-scc-1
47. Puttaswamy v. Union of India – Wikipedia, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puttaswamy_v._Union_of_India
48. An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court’s Privacy Verdict, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/54766/ssoar-indrastraglobal-2017-11-bhandari_et_al-An_Analysis_of_Puttaswamy_The.pdf?sequence=1
49. JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA – South Asian Translaw Database, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://translaw.clpr.org.in/case-law/justice-k-s-puttaswamy-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-privacy/
50. Right to privacy – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/different-aspects-of-right-to-privacy-under-article-21/
51. Supreme Court of India Declares Privacy Is a Fundamental Right, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijrcenter.org/2017/09/13/supreme-court-of-india-declares-privacy-is-a-fundamental-right/
52. Test of Proportionality – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/test-of-proportionality
53. Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act: Judgment Summary – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/reports/constitutionality-of-aadhaar-justice-k-s-puttaswamy-union-of-india-judgment-in-plain-english/
54. The RTI Judgment: On Proportionality – Constitutional Law and Philosophy – WordPress.com, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/11/15/the-rti-judgment-on-proportionality/
55. Proportionality review and economic and social rights in India – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24730580.2024.2368686
56. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/central-public-information-officer-supreme-court-of-india-vs-subhash-chandra-agarwal
57. Judgment in Plain English – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/reports/central-public-information-officer-supreme-court-subash-chandra-agarwal-judgment-in-plain-english/
58. India: Supreme Court recognises the right to privacy – Refworld, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.refworld.org/docid/59b8047a4.html
59. Conflict Between Fundamental Rights: Right To Privacy And Right To Information, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijllr.com/post/conflict-between-fundamental-rights-right-to-privacy-and-right-to-information
60. GIRISH: AN IRON WALL BETWEEN RTI AND PUBLIC INFORMATION Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu* ABSTRACT** There is one order of the Supre, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.nujs.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/File-42.pdf
61. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/girish-ramchandra-deshpande-vs-central-information-commissioner/
62. [RTI v. Right to Privacy] CIC | Under what circumstances exemption of S. 8(1)(j) of RTI Act be claimed? Commission explains the provision in respect to invasion of privacy – SCC Online, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/09/24/rti-v-right-to-privacy-cic-under-what-circumstances-exemption-of-s-81j-of-rti-act-be-claimed-commission-explains-the-provision-in-respect-to-invasion-of-privacy/
63. welcome to Brief facts of the Judgment | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management | Govt. of India – ISTM, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.istm.gov.in/rti_portal/cms/120/2
64. Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal – Global Freedom of Expression, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/supreme-court-india-v-subhash-chandra-agarwal/
65. Right to Privacy under Section 8(1)(j) and Confidentiality under Section 11 of the RTI Act, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://anticorruptionteam.org/hesk/knowledgebase.php?article=3736
66. Right to Privacy under Section 8(1)(j) and Confidentiality under Section 11 of the RTI Act, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://anticorruptionteam.org/hesk/knowledgebase.php?article=532
67. A Balancing Act: Right to Information and Right to Privacy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.rsrr.in/post/a-balancing-act-right-to-information-and-right-to-privacy
68. Can the DPDP Act weaken RTI? Harmonizing privacy protection with the need for transparency – ET Government, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/governance/can-the-dpdp-act-weaken-rti-harmonizing-privacy-protection-with-the-need-for-transparency/114134254
69. Conflicting Fundamental Rights Under the Indian Constitution: Analyzing the Supreme Court’s Doctrinal Gap – Scholarship Archive, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=llm_essays_theses
70. Right to Information & Right to Privacy, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://events.development.asia/system/files/materials/2017/12/201712-right-information-and-right-privacy.pdf
71. How the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 Threatens India’s RTI Framework: A Deep Dive into Section 44(3) and Opposition Pushback – Political Science Solution, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://politicalsciencesolution.com/how-the-digital-personal-data-protection-act-2023-threatens-indias-rti-framework-a-deep-dive-into-section-443-and-opposition-pushback/
72. Unnecessary Amendment: On The RTI Act – Only IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://pwonlyias.com/editorial-analysis/unnecessary-amendment-on-the-rti-act/
73. RTI Judgment: Confusions about Public Interest – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/rti-judgment-confusions-about-public-interest/
74. Affirmation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act: Upholding Personal Privacy Over Individual Requests – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/affirmation-of-section-8(1)(j)-of-the-rti-act:-upholding-personal-privacy-over-individual-requests/view
75. CIC-DGITV-A-2017-316018-BJ–.pdf – CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/CIC-DGITV-A-2017-316018-BJ–.pdf
76. girish ramchandra deshpande vs. central information commissioner & ors. – AWS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://nluwebsite.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/uploads/girish-ramchandra-deshpande-vs-central-information-commissioner-5.pdf
77. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160205361/
78. Supreme Court Clarifies ‘Personal Information’ Exemption under RTI Act: Analysis of Deshpande v. CIC – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/supreme-court-clarifies-‘personal-information’-exemption-under-rti-act:-analysis-of-deshpande-v.-cic/view
79. BALANCING PRIVACY AND TRANSPARENCY: EXPLORING THE INTERSECTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND COURT RECORD ACCESSIBILITY IN INDIA – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/balancing-privacy-and-transparency-exploring-the-intersection-of-the-right-to-privacy-and-court-record-accessibility-in-india/
80. Right to be Forgotten vis a vis Right to Dispensation of Information – Articles – Manupatra, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Right-to-be-Forgotten-vis-a-vis-Right-to-Dispensation-of-Information
81. RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Personal Information – ISTM, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.istm.gov.in/rti_portal/cms/89/4
82. Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 – Shankar IAS Parliament, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/right-to-information-amendment-bill-2019
83. The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 – PRS India, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-right-to-information-amendment-bill-2019
84. Analyzing the RTI (Amendment) Act 2019: Implications for Transparency, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://journalism.university/development-journalism-for-social-change/analyzing-rti-amendment-act-2019-transparency/
85. THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019: A SETBACK FOR INDIAN DEMOCRACY BY – RAM KUMAR BHARDWAJ, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijlra.com/paper-details.php?isuur=3678
86. Recent Amendments to RTI Act via DPDP Act: A Blow to Transparency? – NEXT IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.nextias.com/ca/editorial-analysis/15-04-2025/rti-amendment-dpdp-transparency
87. “Recent Amendments To The Right To Information Act Will Have A Profound Impact On The Autonomy And Independence Of The Information Commission”. Discuss. (150 Words, 10 Marks) – PWOnlyIAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://pwonlyias.com/pyq/recent-amendments-to-the-right-to-information-act-will-have-a-profound-impact-on-the-autonomy-and-independence-of-the-information-commission-discuss-150-words-10-marks/
88. HARMONIZING PRIVACY AND TRANSPARENCY: IMPACT OF DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2023 ON RIGHT TO INFORMATION – Jus Corpus, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.juscorpus.com/harmonizing-privacy-and-transparency-impact-of-digital-personal-data-protection-act-2023-on-right-to-information/
89. Understanding India’s New Data Protection Law, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/10/understanding-indias-new-data-protection-law
90. Data protection laws in India, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=IN
91. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 vs. the GDPR: A Comparison – Latham & Watkins LLP, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2023/12/Indias-Digital-Personal-Data-Protection-Act-2023-vs-the-GDPR-A-Comparison
92. ANALYSIS OF PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT 2023 – The Amikus Qriae, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://theamikusqriae.com/analysis-of-personal-data-protection-act-2023/
93. Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules – PIB, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2090271
94. Celebrating Data Privacy Day: How the DPDP Act is Shaping India’s Digital Future, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiait360.com/article/celebrating-data-privacy-day-how-the-dpdp-act-is-shaping-indias-digital-future
95. An Overview of India’s DPDP Rules 2025: Key Highlights – Ampcus Cyber, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ampcuscyber.com/blogs/dpdp-rules/
96. RTI Act amendment: Amid Opposition fire, Vaishnaw says won’t affect disclosure obligated by laws – The Indian Express, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/rti-act-amendment-opposition-union-minister-ashwini-vaishnaw-disclosure-obligations-9937143/
97. Data protection law provision weakens RTI: Opp; Vaishnaw says disclosures won’t be hit, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indianexpress.com/article/business/data-protection-act-rti-laws-union-minister-ashwini-vaishnaw-9937263/
98. Unnecessary amendment: On the RTI Act | Current Affairs | Vision IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://visionias.in/current-affairs/upsc-daily-news-summary/article/2025-04-15/the-hindu/polity-and-governance/unnecessary-amendment-on-the-rti-act
99. The cost of privacy: India’s DPDP rules risk weakening RTI rights – Voice & Data, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.voicendata.com/opinion/the-cost-of-privacy-indias-dpdp-rules-risk-weakening-rti-rights-8963985
100. THE IMPACT OF THE PUTTASWAMY JUDGEMENT ON LAW RELATING TO SEARCHES, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/15.1-Panigrahi-Mehta-4.pdf
101. THE SURVEILLANCE LAW LANDSCAPE IN INDIA AND THE IMPACT OF Puttaswamy – Global Network Initiative, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CCG-June-15.pdf
102. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (II) – Global Freedom of Expression, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-ii/