Introduction 

The right to privacy and the right to information serves distinct purposes, but their application can intersect when public authorities hold records concerning individuals. On one hand right to privacy protects people against unjustified disclosure of personal information but on the other, Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), enables citizens to examine public decisions, expenditure and the administration of public schemes. The difficulty arises when a record relevant to accountability also contains details about an identifiable person. 

That question has acquired renewed significance following the amendment to section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 

What Changed in the RTI Act? 

Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 substituted section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act with the words “information which relates to personal information”. The amendment came into force on 13 November 2025 through the Central Government’s commencement notification, G.S.R. 843(E). 

Before the amendment, section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act contained a more detailed test for protecting personal information. It covered information that had no relationship to public activity or interest, or whose disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, subject to the larger-public-interest qualification in the provision. The amended clause replaces this language with the shorter phrase “information which relates to personal information”. 

This change removes the earlier express references to public activity or interest and unwarranted invasion of privacy, raising questions about how requests involving both personal information and public accountability should be assessed.  

Section 8(2) of the RTI Act permits access where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests, notwithstanding the exemptions in section 8(1). Section 10 addresses severability. where exempt information can reasonably be separated, access may be given to the remainder of the record. Neither provision guarantees disclosure in every case. Their application depends on the statutory conditions, the information requested and the circumstances in which disclosure is sought. 

How the Supreme Court Has Approached Privacy and Disclosure 

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 and Part III of the Constitution. The judgment provides the constitutional basis for protecting personal information while recognising that privacy is not absolute. Its relevance lies in establishing that restrictions on privacy must satisfy constitutional requirements. However, it does not determine the validity or interpretation of the amended section 8(1)(j). 

In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, the Supreme Court considered requests for employment-related records, disciplinary material and details of assets and liabilities under the then-existing section 8(1)(j). The Court treated the information at issue as personal and declined disclosure in the circumstances, finding insufficient larger public interest to justify it. The judgment illustrates the earlier statutory approach but does not settle the interpretation of the amended provision. 

In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal,the Supreme Court held that the office of the Chief Justice of India falls within the RTI Act. It upheld disclosure of whether Supreme Court judges had declared their assets, finding that this information did not warrant exemption under the then-existing section 8(1)(j). However, the contents of the declarations remained subject to the applicable privacy exemption. The Court also rejected the claim that the declarations were held in a fiduciary capacity. The judgment illustrates how the nature of the information sought can affect the disclosure decision, although it does not determine the interpretation of the amended section 8(1)(j). 

The judgments show that the relationship between privacy and disclosure depends on the nature of the information and the context in which access is sought. How far these principles extend under the amended section 8(1)(j), however, remains to be determined. 

The Accountability Concern 

The practical difficulty arises when a record contains both personal information and evidence relevant to the exercise of public power. Disclosing the entire record may expose details that are not necessary for public scrutiny; withholding it in full may prevent scrutiny of the decision itself. 

Consider a request asking whether housing subsidies were allocated according to published eligibility criteria. The public issue may be examined through the criteria applied, anonymised selection data, aggregate figures, recorded reasons and relevant audit findings. Names, residential addresses, identity numbers and bank details may not be necessary to assess whether the scheme was administered in accordance with its rules. Where these details appear alongside information about the decision, section 10 may be relevant if the legal requirements for severance are satisfied. 

A stated accountability purpose does not, by itself, establish a right to disclosure. The public authority must consider the applicable exemption and the record in question. Applicants can improve the precision of a request by identifying the public decision or expenditure they seek to examine and, where suitable, requesting aggregate or anonymised information. That approach may reduce unnecessary disclosure, but it does not displace the statutory test. 

What Should Public Authorities and RTI Applicants Prepare For? 

Public authorities should identify the information sought, the exemption relied upon and the reasons for applying it. Where a record contains both exempt and non-exempt material, section 10 of the RTI Act permits access to the portion that can reasonably be separated from the exempt information. Section 8(2) also allows disclosure where the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests. Decisions should therefore consider the contents of the record and the applicable statutory provisions, rather than treating the presence of personal information as sufficient reason to withhold the entire record. Clear reasons also allow applicants to challenge refusals through the RTI Act’s appeal process. 

Applicants seeking to examine public expenditure, the application of eligibility criteria or possible irregularities should identify the relevant records, such as expenditure statements, selection criteria or audit reports. Where appropriate, they may seek aggregate figures or records with unnecessary personal details redacted. However, the purpose of a request does not, by itself, establish a right to disclosure; the applicable exemption and the possibility of severing exempt information must still be considered. 

Conclusion 

The amendment to section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has changed the legal framework governing access to personal information. Although sections 8(2) and 10 remain relevant, their application will depend on the information requested and the circumstances of each case.  

For now, public authorities must apply the law to the records before them, taking account of the applicable exemptions and the possibility of separating personal details from information relevant to public scrutiny. The question is whether the amended provision can protect individual privacy without unnecessarily restricting access to information about public decisions and the use of public funds. 

Want to Stay Ahead? 

Reach out to the experts at GoTrust today.