Context: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 can be used to dilute the Right to Information Act, 2005 by classifying all data as "personal". The Court flagged the need to harmonise the two central laws, especially Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amended RTI provisions to allow blanket refusal of personal information.
The Supreme Court, while hearing petitions challenging provisions of the DPDP Act, 2023, agreed to examine whether the law can be used to cripple the RTI Act by treating all data as "personal" and to separately gag investigative journalists. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that both laws are central legislations that need to be harmonised, since the RTI Act operates on a much wider domain (all data) while the DPDP Act deals only with digital personal data.
This case tests the balance between the right to privacy (upheld in Puttaswamy, 2017) and the right to information (a facet of Article 19(1)(a)), both fundamental to good governance. It illustrates the doctrine of harmonious construction between two central laws and has implications for transparency, accountability, and investigative journalism.
Right to Information Act 2005; Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023; Right to Privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy judgment); Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21; doctrine of harmonious construction.
Test your understanding
Q1.Which provision of the DPDP Act, 2023 is at the centre of the dispute over its impact on the RTI Act?