Updated 20 April 2026. Written for someone who has been refused under Section 8(1)(j) and has been told the override is “dead”. It isn't.

• What is public interest
• What changed on 14 November 2025
• Before and after — the comparison
• Does the override still work in 2026
• How to write a Section 8(2) plea that wins
• Court and Commission rulings
• Stakeholder impact
• Frequently asked questions

The table of contents is collapsed by default site-wide — click the heading to expand.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not define “public interest” anywhere in its text. That is on purpose. The drafters left it to the Commissions and the Courts to fill in, case by case. What we have in 2026 is roughly three decades of accumulated judgments — from the S.P. Gupta expansion of Article 19(1)(a) in 1981, through CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) and its “disclosure is the rule” line, to //K.S. Puttaswamy// (2017) and the proportionality test.

In working language, public interest asks three things about a disclosure. Does it advance accountability in the use of public money or public power? Does it help detect, deter, or remedy wrongdoing? Does it enable a citizen to make an informed democratic choice? If the answer to any of those is yes, and the harm from disclosure does not clearly outweigh that benefit, the disclosure is in the public interest.

The Act uses “public interest” in two distinct places. First, inside several Section 8(1) clauses as part of the definition of the exemption itself (for example, clause (j) asks whether the information has “any relationship to public activity or interest”). Second, and far more powerfully, in Section 8(2) as a free-standing override that applies to every Section 8(1) exemption — including the new 8(1)(j) — when the competent authority is satisfied that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the protected interest.

The second Section 8(2) override is the one that matters in 2026. It is the one people are told is dead. It is not.

Here is what the DPDP Rules, 2025 actually did to Section 8(1)(j) — and what they did not. This is the whole story, in one paragraph each.

What changed. The text of Section 8(1)(j) was substituted through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which came into force with the notification of the DPDP Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025. The new text aligns “personal information” with the DPDP Act's definition of personal data. More importantly for practice, the in-clause proviso — the old line that said information which could not be denied to Parliament could not be denied to a citizen — has been removed. That line was an extra shield for applicants; it is gone.

What did not change. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act was NOT amended. It still reads exactly as it did before. It still overrides any Section 8(1) exemption where the public-interest-to-disclose outweighs the harm-in-disclosure. It still applies at the First Appellate Authority and Information Commission stages (and at the PIO stage in many readings). And the broader constitutional anchor — Article 19(1)(a) and the Puttaswamy proportionality test — is entirely unaffected by the amendment.

The practical effect? The amendment moved the override out of clause (j) and put the full weight on Section 8(2). It did not abolish the override. It refocused it. See the full DPDP analysis at DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) and the current 2026 position at DPDP Act vs RTI — 2026 position.

The override did not die. The override moved house. Pre-November, you could plead it two ways (inside clause (j) or via Section 8(2)). Now it is a single-route argument — always Section 8(2).

Yes. Here is what works, and here is what needs sharper drafting than before.

For clauses (a) to (i) — sovereignty, parliamentary privilege, commercial confidence, fiduciary, security, foreign relations, investigation, cabinet papers — nothing has changed. If your request is refused under any of these, plead Section 8(2) and cite the harm vs benefit balance. These clauses were not touched by the DPDP amendment. The Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) reading of the “fiduciary” clause and the Bhagat Singh reading of “impedes investigation” — see Bhagat Singh v. CIC and RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry — still control.

On personal information, the Section 8(2) override still runs. What changed is the evidentiary burden. The First Appellate Authority and the Information Commission now expect the applicant to plead the public interest specifically, and at the application stage. A generic “public interest demands it” line is not enough. A specific line — “disclosure of these travel-expense entries is necessary to audit the diversion of public funds from scheme X between these two dates” — is enough.

Requests about your own service record, disciplinary file, or claim were never within 8(1)(j), and still are not. Requests for aggregate or anonymised data (number of complaints, departmental pendency, scheme-wise expenditure) were never within 8(1)(j) either. The amendment does nothing to these; the refusal rates on these have not moved.

• Works. “Total expenditure on project X between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, file note on sanction dated [Y], names of the signatories on the approval page of the file.”
• Fails at first instance, wins on appeal with 8(2) plea. “Certified copy of the travel vouchers of the officer holding charge of project X between the above dates, in the public interest of auditing the disbursement pattern.”
• Fails cleanly. “Mr Sharma's salary, phone number, and home address.” No public-interest anchor, no public-activity link. Section 8(1)(j) bites.

Copy-paste query templates for the subjects where 8(2) is most often needed live at the RTI Query Builder.

This is the part I spend the most time coaching new applicants on in 2026. There are five moving parts.

1. Name the public interest. Not “in the public interest.” Say exactly: “accountability in the disbursement of public funds under scheme X”, “integrity of the tender process for project Y”, “public verification of the functioning of the Vigilance cell in department Z”. Specific. One sentence.
2. Name the harm you do not cause. Pre-empt the 8(1)(j) shield. “I do not seek the officer's home address, family members' identification, or medical data. I seek the record of their public function in this matter.” This moves the PIO off the easy refusal.
3. Invoke Section 8(2) on the face of the application. Do not save it for appeal. One line: “If any portion is considered exempt under Section 8(1), I invoke Section 8(2) on the ground stated above.”
4. Ask for Section 10 severance as a fallback. “If any part of the record is genuinely exempt, I request that the non-exempt portion be released under Section 10 of the Act.” This forces the PIO to engage, not to refuse wholesale.
5. Keep the request narrow. Name the file. Name the period. Name the office. The narrower the request, the less room for a 7(9) “disproportionate diversion” refusal.

For the full drafting pattern across twelve subjects, see RTI Query Builder. For the ten most common drafting mistakes, see Why RTI Applications Get Rejected. For appeal drafting, see Template: first appeal and Template: second appeal.

The working jurisprudence on public interest is stable. Three anchor rulings do most of the weight-lifting. Newer rulings apply them to new fact patterns.

Post-November 2025 orders continue to apply the Puttaswamy proportionality test. The PIO reply analysis tracks the drafting register of compliant denials. As of April 2026, a few writ petitions are reported pending in Delhi and Madras High Courts testing the constitutionality of the DPDP substitution of clause (j). None has resulted in a reported stay; the substitution operates as law.

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 — current text, Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
• RTI Act summary, sections, and notes.
• Grounds for rejection — concept note.
• Privacy under RTI.
• Privacy of public servants.
• Severability — Section 10.
• Fiduciary relationship — Section 8(1)(e).
• DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment.
• PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025.
• DPDP Act vs RTI — 2026 position.
• A decade of change, 2015 to 2025.
• FAQ — twenty-five most-asked questions.
• How to File RTI Online in India.
• Why RTI Applications Get Rejected.
• RTI Query Builder.
• State RTI vs Central RTI.
• Case law library.

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
2. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
4. Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
5. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
6. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
7. Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
8. Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
9. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
10. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds), Supreme Court, 15 February 2024.
11. Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, W.P. (C) 3114/2007, Delhi High Court.
12. Delhi High Court direction on RTI access to PhD theses, December 2024.

20 April 2026. Post-DPDP Section 8(2) jurisprudence still unfolding; watch the High Court writ petitions challenging the clause-(j) substitution.