DPDP Act Challenge: Balancing Privacy, RTI and Public Accountability

What the challenge raises

The DNPA’s challenge brings together two distinct concerns: whether data-protection duties could obstruct journalistic processing of personal data, and whether the amended RTI exemption could restrict access to information necessary for accountability. The Supreme Court’s issuance of notice opens these questions to examination; it is not a final ruling on constitutionality.

The editorial reports that drafts in 2018, 2019 and 2021 contained a journalistic exemption, whereas the enacted law does not provide a specific exemption for journalism. It also notes exemptions for certain research and statistical processing, strengthening the case for examining whether public-interest reporting needs comparable, carefully tailored protection.

• The absence of a journalistic exemption can affect both investigative reporting and routine newsgathering involving identifiable individuals.
• The editorial cites penalties of up to ₹250 crore; this is not an automatic penalty for every contravention.
• Any legislative or judicial response must distinguish legitimate accountability reporting from unnecessary intrusion into private life.

Why consent-based duties can conflict with journalism

A newsroom determining why and how digital personal data is processed may fall within the definition of a data fiduciary. Where notice and consent obligations apply, approaching the subject of an investigation could alert that person, expose investigative methods or discourage reporting. However, it would be inaccurate to suggest that every journalistic use of personal information necessarily requires consent: the applicable legal basis, scope exclusions and exemptions must also be considered.

Journalism poses a distinctive problem because the person whose data is processed may have an incentive to prevent scrutiny. Reporting on suspected corruption cannot sensibly depend in every case on the investigated person’s permission. Equally, a journalistic label should not become a blanket licence for commercial exploitation, harassment or irrelevant exposure of sensitive information.

• Protection should turn on the purpose and public-interest character of the activity, not merely the publisher’s institutional identity.
• Independent journalists and digital creators undertaking genuine public-interest reporting should not be excluded solely because they lack legacy-media affiliation.
• Data security, relevance, verification and restraint in publication remain important even where consent requirements are relaxed.

The RTI amendment and the public-interest safeguard

Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act substitutes Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act with an exemption for information relating to personal information. The earlier clause linked the exemption to absence of a relationship with public activity or interest, or to unwarranted invasion of privacy, and expressly allowed disclosure where larger public interest justified it.

An important qualification is that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains a general public-interest override: notwithstanding the exemptions under Section 8(1), a public authority may allow access where the public interest in disclosure outweighs harm to protected interests. Therefore, the amendment should not be described as deleting every public-interest route to disclosure. The concern is that removing the specific balancing language from Section 8(1)(j) broadens the initial exemption and may encourage routine refusals.

Asset disclosures and tender records can contain personal information while also revealing conflicts of interest or misuse of public resources. Section 10 on severability offers a practical tool: disclose accountability-relevant portions while redacting exempt personal details.

• Personal information and information about public conduct can overlap; classification alone should not end the inquiry.
• Information officers should explain the privacy harm and assess the public interest rather than issue mechanical refusals.
• Redaction can protect private contact details or unrelated family information without suppressing the substance of an accountability record.

Constitutional balance: privacy without immunity

Article 19(1)(a) protects expression, press freedom and the constitutional basis of the right to know. Privacy, recognised in the Puttaswamy judgment, protects dignity and autonomy. Neither interest should be treated as automatically decisive: restrictions must satisfy the applicable constitutional standards, including proportionality.

The strongest case for disclosure arises where information has a demonstrable connection with official duties, public expenditure, corruption or conflicts of interest. Public curiosity about a functionary’s personal life is not equivalent to public interest. Conversely, the presence of a name or another personal identifier should not convert an otherwise accountable public transaction into a secret.

The editorial reports that Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw indicated willingness to meet editors. Consultation can help develop workable safeguards, but any change to a statutory exemption must have an appropriate legal basis and cannot be achieved merely through informal assurances.

• Assess whether the disclosure serves a legitimate accountability purpose.
• Consider whether redaction or narrower disclosure can achieve that purpose with less privacy intrusion.
• Provide reasoned decisions and effective review when access is denied or journalistic processing is penalised.