RTI After the DPDP Act β What the New Section 8(1)(j) Means for Your Applications
For twenty years, one clause decided some of RTI's most consequential battles: Section 8(1)(j), the "personal information" exemption. It protected privacy β but with a built-in override: information could still be disclosed if a larger public interest justified it, and nothing that could not be denied to Parliament could be denied to a citizen. That balance produced disclosures on officials' assets, appointment irregularities and beneficiary lists.
The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act rewrote that clause β and with the DPDP regime operational since the Rules were notified in November 2025, the change is now live law. Here's what it means when you file.
What exactly changed
| Before (RTI Act, 2005) | After (as amended by the DPDP Act) |
|---|---|
| Personal information exempt only if disclosure has no relation to public activity, or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy | Exemption simply covers "information which relates to personal information" |
| PIO could disclose if larger public interest justified it | The public-interest override in the clause is gone |
| Proviso: what cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen | Proviso removed |
In short: what was a conditional exemption with a public-interest safety valve became close to a blanket one for anything a PIO labels "personal information".
Why transparency advocates are alarmed
RTI's most celebrated uses often ran through people-shaped information: muster rolls with worker names exposing fake entries in employment schemes, ration-shop beneficiary lists revealing ghost beneficiaries, officials' travel bills and asset declarations, marksheets exposing appointment fraud. Under the amended clause, PIOs have a ready-made ground to refuse all of it β regardless of what it reveals about public money.
The matter is now constitutional: petitions challenging the DPDP Act and Rules β including this amendment β are before the Supreme Court, which issued notice to the Union of India in February 2026 and referred the questions to a larger bench. Until it rules, the amended text stands.
Some PIOs now cite "DPDP" even for plainly non-personal records like tender documents or expenditure statements. The DPDP Act does not exempt official records that contain no personal data. Refusals of that kind are appealable β and worth appealing.
How to draft applications that still work
The amendment covers personal information β not government functioning. Draft accordingly.
- Ask about records and actions, not individuals. "Provide copies of all inspection reports for licence no. X in 2025-26" works; "provide details of the officer who inspected X" invites the exemption.
- Target expenditure and outcomes. Sanctioned amounts, utilisation certificates, completion status, audit paras β none of this is personal information.
- Accept anonymised data. "Number of complaints received and action taken, without names" gives PIOs no exemption to hide behind while still exposing patterns.
- Invoke Section 4. Much of what Section 8(1)(j) now blocks β including many categories of official information β is supposed to be proactively published under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Ask why a Section 4 disclosure hasn't been made; that framing bypasses the personal-information debate entirely.
- Seek your own information freely. The exemption protects others' personal data. Your own file, your own application status, your own service records β always askable.
If you're refused under the new clause
- File the first appeal within 30 days, arguing the information sought is official, not personal β or is severable (Section 10 lets the PIO release the non-personal part after redaction; demand that severance).
- Cite the record's public character: documents created in the discharge of official duty, spending of public funds, or statutory compliance are not private facts about a person.
- Escalate to the Information Commission if needed β Commissions are still working out the amended clause's limits, and reasoned appeals are shaping that line right now.
The bottom line
The DPDP amendment tilted RTI's privacy balance sharply toward non-disclosure, and the Supreme Court will have the final word. Until then, the practical craft matters more than ever: chase records, money and outcomes rather than named individuals, demand redaction instead of accepting blanket refusal, and appeal. The right to know is narrower than it was β but only for those who draft carelessly.
How this guide is made
Written and fact-checked by the Awareness360 editorial team from primary sources β RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, the Income Tax Department and Government of India portals β with links to the originals in the text above. Last reviewed on 3 Jul 2026. This is general educational information for Indian readers, not professional financial, legal or tax advice.
Spotted something out of date? Tell us and we'll correct it β see our editorial policy.