The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 came into force in stages. Section 44(3) amends RTI Act §8(1)(j). The change is both narrower and broader than headlines suggest.

§8(1)(j) old: information that “would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy” was exempt unless larger public interest justified disclosure. Two thresholds — unwarranted and larger public interest — gave applicants room to argue.

§8(1)(j) post-DPDP: any “personal information of natural persons” is exempt. The “unwarranted” qualifier is removed; the “public interest” carve-out remains but at a higher threshold.

• Service records — pay scales, joining dates, ACR/APAR — are now harder to get. Deshpande (2013) logic strengthens.
• Beneficiary names — PMAY, MGNREGA, scholarships — the §4(1)(b)(xii) suo-motu exception still requires lists, but cell-level personal details are tighter.
• Complaint outcomes — names of complainants/respondents in disciplinary cases are firmly protected.

• Public-domain information — gazettes, Parliament floor data, court records, prior CIC orders.
• Aggregate / anonymised data — beneficiary counts, scheme spend, demographic averages.
• Office-bearer disclosures — public functionaries' official conduct, position, decision-making.
• Public-interest information — corruption, misuse of funds, safety hazards.

1. Frame as “published / gazetted version” — pre-empt §8(1)(j) refusal.
2. Ask for anonymised data explicitly.
3. Cite §4(1) suo motu duty alongside §6 to invoke higher disclosure standard.
4. Where personal info is genuinely needed, build the public-interest case in the application itself (don't wait for the PIO to refuse).

1. DPDP Act 2023 §44(3).
2. RTI Act 2005 §8(1)(j), §4(1)(b)(xii).
3. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013).

Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.