📌 Why in News?
The Supreme Court granted the Centre two weeks to respond to petitions challenging amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act made through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act
Background
Section 44(3) of DPDP Act had amended the RTI Act to facilitate public authorities to refuse information on the ground that the details sought was of a “personal” nature. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act deals with exemption from disclosure of personal information.
Syllabus & Relevance
Prelims: Polity & Governance — institutions, terminology and factual features connected with the development.
Mains: GS-2 — contemporary application of the relevant syllabus theme.
Current–static link: Revise the underlying institution, policy or concept together with this development.
Why it matters for India
Srikrishna Committee to develop a data protection framework for India.
Scope: It applies to the processing of digital personal data within India where such data is collected online, or collected offline and is digitised.
It also applies to such processing outside India, if it is for offering goods or services in India.
Static Foundation
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act deals with exemption from disclosure of personal information.
The earlier provision exempted only limited categories of personal information and incorporated a public interest test.
The amended provision broadly exempts all personal information from disclosure, thereby restricting access to information protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Question Before SC: The court said both the DPDP Act and the RTI Act were central legislations.
There was a need to actually harmonise them.
The court would examine if this restrictive or “cautionary approach” to sharing data under the DPDP Act worked to repeal earlier transparency legislations.
About Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
Data, Reports, Cases & Examples
The Supreme Court granted the Centre two weeks to respond to petitions challenging amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act made through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
Background: Section 44(3) of DPDP Act had amended the RTI Act to facilitate public authorities to refuse information on the ground that the details sought was of a “personal” nature.
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act deals with exemption from disclosure of personal information.
The amended provision broadly exempts all personal information from disclosure, thereby restricting access to information protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Question Before SC: The court said both the DPDP Act and the RTI Act were central legislations.
The court would examine if this restrictive or “cautionary approach” to sharing data under the DPDP Act worked to repeal earlier transparency legislations.
Prelims Quick Facts
The Supreme Court granted the Centre two weeks to respond to petitions challenging amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act made through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
Background: Section 44(3) of DPDP Act had amended the RTI Act to facilitate public authorities to refuse information on the ground that the details sought was of a “personal” nature.
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act deals with exemption from disclosure of personal information.
The earlier provision exempted only limited categories of personal information and incorporated a public interest test.
The amended provision broadly exempts all personal information from disclosure, thereby restricting access to information protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Question Before SC: The court said both the DPDP Act and the RTI Act were central legislations.
There was a need to actually harmonise them.
The court would examine if this restrictive or “cautionary approach” to sharing data under the DPDP Act worked to repeal earlier transparency legislations.
Mains-only layer✍️ Open Mains Perspective & Answer FrameworkClick to expand ↓
Mains Perspective
Background and key dimensions
- The amended provision broadly exempts all personal information from disclosure, thereby restricting access to information protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Question Before SC: The court said both the DPDP Act and the RTI Act were central legislations.
- There was a need to actually harmonise them.
- The court would examine if this restrictive or “cautionary approach” to sharing data under the DPDP Act worked to repeal earlier transparency legislations.
- About Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
- Background: In 2017, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) established the Justice B.N.
- Srikrishna Committee to develop a data protection framework for India.
- Scope: It applies to the processing of digital personal data within India where such data is collected online, or collected offline and is digitised.
- It also applies to such processing outside India, if it is for offering goods or services in India.
- Consent: Personal data may be processed only for a lawful purpose upon consent of an individual.
- Consent may not be required for specified legitimate uses such as voluntary sharing of data by the individual or processing by the State for permits, licenses, benefits, and services.
- Obligations for Data fiduciaries: To maintain the accuracy of data, keep data secure, and delete data once its purpose has been met.
Analytical use
- Connect the development with its institutional, policy, economic, social, environmental or security implications only where supported above.
- In a Mains answer, separate the verified development from broader evaluation and use the named evidence precisely.
Way forward
- Base recommendations on the gaps and institutional responsibilities identified in the source-grounded points.
Answer Framework
Introduction
Begin with the immediate development and identify the central institution or policy issue.
Body
- Explain the relevant static concept.
- Present the principal source-backed facts.
- Analyse significance for India and the syllabus theme.
- Discuss supported challenges or implementation gaps.
- Use one named law, report, institution, date or example from the evidence box.
Conclusion
End with a balanced, institutionally feasible way forward without making claims beyond the available evidence.
Possible Mains Question
Examine the significance of “SC Seeks Govt’s Reply on Pleas Against RTI Changes through DPDP Act”. Discuss its key implications and the way forward.