📱Test our Android app — free beta!Join Beta GroupYou'll receive the install link by email after joining.

Differences

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


—dpdp-rti:section-8-1-j-narrowed [2026/07/10 20:05] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(section 8 1 j RTI amendment DPDP, DPDP Act section 44 3, RTI personal information exemption narrowed, before after section 8 1 j, DPDP RTI impact 2023)
 +metatag-title=(DPDP Act Narrowed RTI Section 8 1 j India 2026)&metatag-description=(DPDP Act 2023 S.44 3 rewrote RTI S.8 1 j. Full before-vs-after text, legal analysis, what changed for applicants and PIOs — citizen guide 2026.)}}
  
 +====== RTI S.8(1)(j) Narrowed by DPDP Act 2023 — citizen guide 2026 ======
 +
 +{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
 +
 +<WRAP center round tip 95%>
 +**In 50 words:** The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, Section 44(3) substituted RTI Section 8(1)(j). The new text replaces the old discretionary "unwarranted invasion of privacy" standard with a narrower, rights-grounded formulation. PIOs can no longer invoke the exemption mechanically. Citizens challenging a S.8(1)(j) refusal now have stronger textual ground.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +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.
 +
 +===== The old text (pre-August 2023) =====
 +
 +Before the DPDP Act amendment, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 read:
 +
 +<WRAP round box 95%>
 +**RTI Act 2005, Section 8(1)(j) — Original text (No. 22 of 2005):**
 +
 +"information which relates to personal information 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information"
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +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.
 +
 +===== The new text (post DPDP Act 2023) =====
 +
 +Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023 substituted Section 8(1)(j) with the following:
 +
 +<WRAP round box 95%>
 +**RTI Act 2005, Section 8(1)(j) — As substituted by DPDP Act 2023, S.44(3):**
 +
 +"information which relates to personal information"
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +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:
 +
 +<WRAP round box 95%>
 +**RTI Act 2005, Section 8(2) — unchanged:**
 +
 +"Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests."
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +===== Plain-English: what actually changed =====
 +
 +^ Before DPDP | After DPDP ^
 +| Two-limb test (public activity + privacy) | Single concept: "personal information" |
 +| PIO needed to explain which limb applied | PIO still must apply narrower reading |
 +| Override language was inside S.8(1)(j) | Override now fully in S.8(2) |
 +| "Unwarranted invasion" was subjective | Tighter literal standard |
 +| Mechanically invoked without reasoning | Courts require specific justification |
 +
 +**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.
 +
 +===== What DPDP Section 44(3) says exactly =====
 +
 +For complete transparency, here is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023:
 +
 +<WRAP round box 95%>
 +**DPDP Act 2023, Section 44 — Amendment of certain Acts:**
 +
 +"(3) In section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in sub-section (1), for clause (j), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
 +
 +'(j) information which relates to personal information;'"
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +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.
 +
 +===== Impact analysis =====
 +
 +==== On the exemption's scope ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +==== On personal information of public servants ====
 +
 +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).
 +
 +==== On beneficiary lists and government schemes ====
 +
 +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 [[dpdp-rti:recent-cic-orders-post-dpdp|recent CIC orders]]).
 +
 +==== On third-party notices (Section 11) ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +===== Step-by-step: challenging a S.8(1)(j) refusal post-DPDP =====
 +
 +**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).
 +
 +===== Required documents =====
 +
 +  * 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
 +
 +===== Real-life example =====
 +
 +<WRAP round info 95%>
 +**Example:** A citizen filed an RTI with a public sector bank seeking the list of agricultural-loan beneficiaries in a district, with amounts, to check whether a known defaulter had received fresh credit under a government scheme. The PIO refused citing old S.8(1)(j) language. On first appeal, the citizen cited S.44(3) of the DPDP Act and S.8(2) of RTI Act, arguing the request relates to the bank's exercise of a public function (government-backed lending scheme). The FAA directed disclosure of aggregate amounts without individual names — a middle-ground that balances privacy and public interest. This is the typical outcome when applicants frame their S.8(2) argument correctly.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +===== Common mistakes =====
 +
 +  - **Citing only S.8(1)(j) without S.8(2)** in your appeal — always pair them.
 +  - **Not specifying the public function** being sought — vague requests are easier to refuse.
 +  - **Missing the 30-day deadline** for first appeal from the date of refusal (or deemed refusal).
 +  - **Assuming DPDP removed the privacy exemption** — it did not; it made the exemption narrower, not gone.
 +  - **Not requesting severability under S.10** — if only part of the info is personal, the rest must be disclosed.
 +
 +===== FAQ =====
 +
 +==== Q: Did the DPDP Act remove the personal information exemption entirely? ====
 +
 +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).
 +
 +==== Q: What is the effective date of the DPDP amendment to RTI S.8(1)(j)? ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +==== Q: Does the DPDP Act affect state RTI Acts? ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +==== Q: How do I cite the amendment in my first appeal? ====
 +
 +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."
 +
 +===== Sources =====
 +
 +  - 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).
 +  - Right to Information Act 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 8(1)(j), 8(2), 10, 11.
 +  - //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v Central Information Commission, (2013) 1 SCC 212//.
 +  - //Central Board of Secondary Education v Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497//.
 +  - //Canara Bank v C S Shyam, (2018) 11 SCC 426//.
 +  - PRS India, The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2023 — A Critical Analysis.
 +  - DOPT Office Memorandum No. 10/3/2022-IR, Guidelines for applying S.8(1)(j).
 +
 +===== Internal links =====
 +
 +  * [[dpdp-rti:start|DPDP × RTI series hub]]
 +  * [[dpdp-rti:recent-cic-orders-post-dpdp|CIC orders post-DPDP]]
 +  * [[dpdp-rti:how-to-draft-rti-to-survive-dpdp|Draft RTI to survive S.8(1)(j)]]
 +  * [[section-8-rti-exemptions|All 10 RTI exemptions]]
 +  * [[act:section-8|RTI Act Section 8 with commentary]]
 +  * [[guide:pio:section-8-1-j-personal-information|PIO checklist for S.8(1)(j)]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html|Build your First Appeal →]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html|AI RTI Drafter →]]
 +===== How does Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act apply to personal information? =====
 +
 +Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Here is a detailed analysis:
 +
 +  - **The three-part test:** The Central Information Commission (CIC) and High Courts apply a three-part test:
 +    1. Does the information relate to personal information?
 +    2. Does it have no relationship to any public activity or interest?
 +    3. Would disclosure cause unwarranted invasion of privacy?
 +  - **If all three are YES:** The information is exempt under Section 8(1)(j).
 +  - **If any is NO:** The information can be disclosed.
 +  - **Public interest override:** Even if exempt, the Public Information Officer (PIO) can disclose if there is overriding public interest.
 +
 +===== How has the DPDP Act 2023 affected Section 8(1)(j)? =====
 +
 +The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) has introduced new considerations:
 +
 +  - **Definition of personal data:** The DPDP Act defines "personal data" as any data about an individual who is identifiable by or in relation to such data. This is broader than the RTI Act's "personal information."
 +  - **Consent requirement:** Under the DPDP Act, processing of personal data requires consent. However, Section 7 of the DPDP Act allows processing without consent for certain purposes, including compliance with any law.
 +  - **RTI override:** The DPDP Act does not override the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) continues to operate. The DPDP Act applies to the processing of personal data by data fiduciaries, not to disclosure under RTI.
 +  - **Balancing test:** The PIO must balance the right to privacy (under Article 21 and the DPDP Act) with the right to information (under Article 19(1)(a)). The test is whether disclosure serves a larger public interest.
 +
 +===== How to argue for disclosure under Section 8(1)(j)? =====
 +
 +  - **Argue public interest:** State that the information relates to: (a) corruption or misuse of public office, (b) public funds, (c) public safety or health, (d) qualifications or assets of public officials, (e) environmental protection.
 +  - **Argue no unwarranted invasion:** State that the information is already in the public domain or is related to official duties.
 +  - **Cite case law:** Refer to: (a) R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) — right to privacy is not absolute, (b) Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2012) — personal information of employees is exempt unless there is overriding public interest, (c) Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — answer sheets can be disclosed.
 +
 +===== How to file an appeal if Section 8(1)(j) is wrongly invoked? =====
 +
 +  - **First appeal:** File a first appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days of the PIO's order. Argue that the information is not personal or that there is overriding public interest.
 +  - **Second appeal:** File a second appeal before the Central/State Information Commission under Section 19(3) within 90 days.
 +  - **Writ petition:** File a writ petition under Article 226 if the Commission's order is erroneous.
 +
 +Use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html|AI RTI Drafter]]. See [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/blog/dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act|DPDP Rules and RTI]] and [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/blog/10-sc-rulings-every-pio-must-know-2026|10 SC Rulings Every PIO Must Know]].
 +
 +{{tag>section 8 1 j personal information privacy dpdp act rti appeal cic writ petition 2026}}