no way to compare when less than two revisions

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(DPDP Act RTI, Section 8 1 j amendment, personal information RTI, DPDP Section 44 3, privacy RTI)
+metatag-description=(How the DPDP Act 2023 §44(3) amendment of RTI §8(1)(j) is being applied — practical impact, defensive framing, what is still disclosable.)}}
+====== DPDP Act 2023 §44(3) — what really changed for §8(1)(j) and your RTI ======
+{{:social:auto:dpdp-act-impact-on-rti-section-8-1-j.png?direct&1200 |DPDP Act 2023 §44(3) — what really changed for §8(1)(j) and your RTI — RTI Wiki}}
+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.
+===== Before =====
+§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.
+===== After =====
+§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.
+===== Practical impact =====
+  * **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.
+===== What is still disclosable =====
+  * **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.
+===== Defensive RTI drafting =====
+  - Frame as **"published / gazetted version"** — pre-empt §8(1)(j) refusal.
+  - Ask for **anonymised data** explicitly.
+  - Cite **§4(1) suo motu duty** alongside §6 to invoke higher disclosure standard.
+  - Where personal info is genuinely needed, **build the public-interest case** in the application itself (don't wait for the PIO to refuse).
+===== Sources =====
+  - DPDP Act 2023 §44(3).
+  - RTI Act 2005 §8(1)(j), §4(1)(b)(xii).
+  - Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013).
+//Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.//
+{{tag>blog DPDP-Act-2023 section-8-1-j personal-information privacy-RTI}}