The Supreme Court on Monday declined to stay an amendment to the Right to Information Act made through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, Bar and Bench reported.
The amendment bars the disclosure of personal information about public officials even on the grounds of larger public interest.
Hearing petitions seeking a stay on the amendment, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi observed that the matter was sensitive, and was about balancing competing interests because “it touches upon fundamental rights on both sides”.
“We have to iron out the creases and lay down what is personal information,” Kant was quoted as saying.
The court said that it cannot block a legislation by Parliament unless it hears the case. It agreed to “decide at the earliest” and said it would place the matter before a larger bench in March.
The court issued a notice to the Union government, Live Law reported.
The bench was hearing pleas filed by news organisation The Reporters Collective and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, among others.
The Reporters Collective has challenged the constitutional validity of the 2023 personal data protection law and its 2025 rules.
The plea particularly challenges sections pertaining to consent, processing obligations, government access to data, amendments to the RTI Act and the setting up of the Data Protection Board, Bar and Bench reported.
The petitioners have contended that the rules notified in November alter the balance between privacy, transparency and free speech.
Section 44(3) of the digital personal data protection law amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This blocked the disclosure of “personal” information in larger public interest, which was allowed earlier.
The petitioners have contended that the change allows the authorities to withhold information on the grounds that it is personal even if it pertains to public activities or accountability.
The digital personal data protection law also does not contain exemptions for processing personal data for public interest or journalistic purposes such as investigative reporting, the plea has argued.
News associations have expressed concern about the digital personal data protection rules saying that the “ambiguous obligations” they impose could open the door for indirect censorship.
Critics have described the amendment to the RTI Act as a serious threat to the principles of transparency and accountability that the law was designed to uphold.
Also Read: Why the draft personal data protection rules are contentious
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!