Challenge to DPDP Amendment of RTI | Bench refuses to stay amendment, issues notice
Judges: Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi J, V.M. Pancholi J
Today, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi issued notice in challenges against the amendments made to the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP). Petitioners claim that the DPDP Act narrows the scope of the RTI with regard to disclosure of “personal information” pertaining to larger public interest.
Writ petitioners were filed by Venkatesh Nayak from Access to Information Programme, Journalist Nitin Sethi and The Reporters Collective-demanding a stay on the impugned amendment.
Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, and Advocates Vrinda Grover and Prashant Bhusan appeared for the petitioners.
Balancing of competing interests
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover began arguments stating that the subject matter of the challenge is closely linked to the balancing of competing interests—right to information and the right of privacy. Grover described the amendment with an analogy–”Instead of using a chisel, it uses a hammer.”
Advocate Prashant Bhusan remarked that the point of law has been settled by a Constitution Bench in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Aggarwal (2019), where disclosure of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act could be justified on the grounds of larger public interest. “Section 8(1)(j) strikes the precise balance between privacy and transparency,” remarked Bhusan.
CJI Surya Kant: “Need to iron out creases”
CJI Surya Kant stated that the Court would only issue notice at the present stage, adding: “To create a balance between both rights, we might have to iron out some creases.” Further, he highlighted the need for defining “personal information”.
The CJI also refused to entertain the interim application for staying the amendment. “We can decide the case at the earliest,” said the CJI. Bhusan broached the subject of the interim stay again, suggesting that the broad definition of privacy under the DPDP Act is widely used to “deny information.”
“We cannot stay the legislation through the interim order, unless we come to a definite conclusion,” remarked CJI Kant.
The Bench directed the matter to be placed before a larger bench. The matter shall be listed again in March.