• RTI Act, Section 8(1)(j) — personal information exempt unless larger public interest is served (the proviso).
• RTI Act, Section 8(2) — override clause operating across all Section 8(1) sub-clauses.
• DPDP Act, 2023 + DPDP Rules, 2025 — strengthened third-party privacy baseline; the public-interest override now operates solely via Section 8(2).
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — privacy is a fundamental right; restrictions must satisfy the three-step test: legality, necessity, proportionality.

1. Step 1 — Legality. Is the disclosure authorised by law? The RTI Act + Section 8(2) supplies legality.
2. Step 2 — Legitimate aim. What public interest is pleaded or apparent? Accountability, fraud detection, scheme integrity, public-servant conduct, patient-safety pattern, voter-roll accuracy, etc.
3. Step 3 — Necessity. Is the information sought necessary to achieve the aim, or merely relevant? If a less-intrusive alternative exists (aggregated data, anonymised data), necessity favours the less intrusive route.
4. Step 4 — Proportionality. Does the benefit to public interest outweigh the harm to the third party? A tight proportionality analysis weighs:
   • Nature of the third party (public servant — weaker privacy; private individual — stronger).
   • Nature of the information (service-conduct — weaker; medical / bank account — stronger).
   • Severity of the claimed public-interest harm.
   • Availability of less-intrusive alternatives (Section 10 severance).

• Public servants have privacy — but limited. CPIO, SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 — public function reduces the privacy shield; doesn't remove it.
• Service records remain protected. Girish Deshpande, (2013) 1 SCC 212 — ACR/APAR/medical leave typically shielded.
• Answer scripts belong to the candidate. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — own data always disclosable.
• Regulator's files are not fiduciary. RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525 — but customer-level privacy still requires Section 10 redaction.
• DPDP does not override Section 8(2). The override remains; the baseline just got stronger.

Analysis — Balancing under Section 8(2).

The PIO has invoked Section 8(1)(j). This Office has applied the four-step balancing as required by //K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI// (2017) and Section 8(2):

(a) Legality: RTI Act + Section 8(2) authorises the inquiry.

(b) Legitimate aim: The applicant [has / has not] pleaded a specific public-interest aim. On examination, the aim [is / is not] genuine because [reasons].

(c) Necessity: The information sought [is / is not] necessary. A less-intrusive alternative [is available / is not available] in the form of [aggregated statistic / anonymised record / Section 10 severance].

(d) Proportionality: The third party is [a public servant / a private individual]. The record [relates / does not relate] to public-function conduct. The harm to privacy is [proportionate / disproportionate] to the public-interest benefit.

Conclusion: The balancing [favours / does not favour] disclosure. [Direct partial disclosure / Direct full disclosure / Dismiss appeal].

• Skipping Steps 2-3 — leaping to proportionality without examining legitimate aim and necessity.
• Treating “public servant” as blanket waiver — privacy subsists; only the shield narrows.
• Ignoring Section 10 severance — the most frequent “less-intrusive alternative”.
• Confusing Puttaswamy with a bar on disclosure — it sets the test, not a ban.
• Not recording the balancing in the order — leaves it vulnerable on Second Appeal.

• Write the four-step in the order explicitly. Even three sentences per step is better than silence.
• Identify the less-intrusive alternative before you deny. Often forces a partial disclosure.
• Flag serial requesters where applicable — not as a bar but as a factor in proportionality.
• Stay current on DPDP Rules 2025 — the baseline keeps evolving.

• K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — privacy as fundamental right; three-step test.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212 — service-record privacy.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — own-data disclosure.
• RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525 — narrow fiduciary; customer-level redaction.
• CPIO, SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 — proportional balance for public offices.

Q1. Must the applicant always plead public interest?
Strictly, Section 6(2) bars the PIO from demanding a reason. But at the balancing stage, a pleaded public interest helps the applicant's case.

Q2. Can the FAA infer public interest from the context?
Yes. The FAA is not limited to pleaded grounds.

Q3. What if the third party objects?
Under Section 11, objection is one input; the balancing determines outcome.

Q4. Has DPDP 2025 removed the public-interest override?
No. Section 8(2) is intact. The override's location shifted from within 8(1)(j) to the separate Section 8(2).

Privacy and public interest are not in a zero-sum relationship. They are two rights that the FAA harmonises through a disciplined four-step balance. Applied consistently, the balancing produces orders that survive Second Appeal, serve the citizen, and respect the third party.

• FAA speaking-order guide
• FAA review checklist
• Section 8(1)(j) framework
• PIO & FAA knowledge base
• Puttaswamy — privacy

• RTI Act, 2005, Section 8(1)(j), 8(2)
• DPDP Act, 2023 + DPDP Rules, 2025
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1
• Girish Deshpande, (2013) 1 SCC 212
• Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497
• Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.