RTI S.8(1)(j) Narrowed by DPDP Act 2023 — citizen guide 2026

The most-invoked exemption in the Right to Information Act, 2005 just got rewritten. Section 8(1)(j) — which allows PIOs to withhold “personal information” — was amended by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023). This page gives you the before-and-after text, a plain-English analysis, and what it means for your RTI applications.

Before the DPDP Act amendment, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 read:

Key features of the original text:

• Two alternative grounds — “no relationship to public activity” OR “unwarranted invasion of privacy”.
• A public-interest override: if the authority is “satisfied that the larger public interest justifies” disclosure, it must disclose.
• Vague standard: “unwarranted invasion” gave PIOs wide discretion.
• No requirement to be specific about which limb applied or how.

Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023 substituted Section 8(1)(j) with the following:

The substitution is brief and significant. The entire qualifying language — “the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the … authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure” — has been removed from S.8(1)(j) itself.

The public-interest override now operates entirely through Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which was left intact:

Practical effect on PIOs: A PIO cannot simply stamp “personal information — exempted u/s 8(1)(j)” on any reply touching an individual's name or data. The new, shorter text is read alongside S.8(2) — meaning that even where S.8(1)(j) applies, the authority must separately consider whether public interest outweighs the exemption.

Practical effect on applicants: When you appeal a S.8(1)(j) refusal, you can now argue specifically that the refusal does not engage with the narrower amended text and does not address S.8(2)'s public-interest analysis.

For complete transparency, here is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023:

This is a textbook example of a “substitution” style amendment — the old S.8(1)(j) is excised and a new one inserted. The DPDP Act itself is the authority for the change. You can verify the exact text at the Official Gazette (Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, No. 50, dated 11 August 2023) published by the Ministry of Law and Justice.

The old text contained an express carve-out: even personal information could be disclosed if “there is a larger public interest”. This carve-out now lives in S.8(2) of the RTI Act, which pre-existed the DPDP Act. Critics argue this makes the carve-out marginally less visible to PIOs who read S.8(1)(j) in isolation; practitioners argue the consolidated S.8(2) override is actually cleaner and harder to ignore.

The Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212 held that service records, ACRs, and asset declarations of public servants are largely personal but the public-interest test always applies. This principle survives the DPDP amendment. Nothing in DPDP changes the settled law that information about a public servant's exercise of public functions is not personal information under S.8(1)(j).

RTI applicants routinely sought beneficiary lists under social schemes — MGNREGS, PM Kisan, PDS. PIOs often refused citing S.8(1)(j). The DPDP amendment does not resolve this tension directly, but CIC benches post-2023 have been applying the S.8(2) public-interest analysis more rigorously (see recent CIC orders).

Section 11 of the RTI Act requires a PIO to issue notice to a third party whose information is sought, before disclosure. This provision was not amended by DPDP and continues to interact with S.8(1)(j). If a third party objects, the PIO must balance their objection against S.8(2) public interest.

① Obtain the PIO's refusal order in writing (under RTI S.7(1)).

② Check whether the refusal cites the amended text of S.8(1)(j) — “information which relates to personal information” — or the old text. Many PIOs are still citing pre-DPDP language.

③ In your First Appeal (within 30 days of refusal, to the First Appellate Authority):

• Quote S.44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023 and note the amendment.
• Argue that the PIO did not apply S.8(2)'s public-interest override.
• Cite Girish Deshpande if your request relates to a public servant's official conduct.

④ If the FAA upholds the refusal, file a Second Appeal to CIC (within 90 days, Form B, ₹0 fee for Central PA).

⑤ In the CIC complaint/appeal, specifically request that the bench apply the post-DPDP amended text and independently assess S.8(2).

• RTI application (original copy)
• PIO refusal order with date and section cited
• FAA order (for second appeal)
• Proof of fee payment (postal order / online challan)
• Specific paragraphs citing S.44(3) DPDP Act 2023 and S.8(2) RTI Act

1. Citing only S.8(1)(j) without S.8(2) in your appeal — always pair them.
2. Not specifying the public function being sought — vague requests are easier to refuse.
3. Missing the 30-day deadline for first appeal from the date of refusal (or deemed refusal).
4. Assuming DPDP removed the privacy exemption — it did not; it made the exemption narrower, not gone.
5. Not requesting severability under S.10 — if only part of the info is personal, the rest must be disclosed.

No. The exemption still exists — “information which relates to personal information” is still exempt. What changed is the qualifying text that made it easier for PIOs to invoke. The new text is shorter and stricter; the public-interest override survives in S.8(2).

The DPDP Act 2023 received Presidential assent on 11 August 2023. Section 44(3) was not the subject of any staged commencement notification — the amendment to S.8(1)(j) is generally understood to have come into effect on assent date, 11 August 2023. Any RTI application decided or appealed after that date should be assessed under the amended text.

The DPDP Act is a Central statute amending the Central RTI Act. States with their own information legislation (like J&K pre-2019) are separately affected based on their own statutory schemes. State PIOs dealing with Central Government subjects must apply the amended Central RTI Act.

Write: “The PIO's refusal invokes Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. I respectfully submit that Section 8(1)(j) was substituted by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (No. 22 of 2023) with effect from 11 August 2023. The amended text reads: 'information which relates to personal information'. The PIO has not engaged with the public-interest override under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which mandates disclosure where public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”

1. Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3), Official Gazette (Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, No. 50, 11 August 2023).
2. Right to Information Act 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 8(1)(j), 8(2), 10, 11.
3. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v Central Information Commission, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
4. Central Board of Secondary Education v Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
5. Canara Bank v C S Shyam, (2018) 11 SCC 426.
6. PRS India, The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2023 — A Critical Analysis.
7. DOPT Office Memorandum No. 10/3/2022-IR, Guidelines for applying S.8(1)(j).

• DPDP × RTI series hub
• CIC orders post-DPDP
• Draft RTI to survive S.8(1)(j)
• All 10 RTI exemptions
• RTI Act Section 8 with commentary
• PIO checklist for S.8(1)(j)
• Build your First Appeal →
• AI RTI Drafter →