Right to Information Wiki

DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 00:47:14 +0000

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act ======
	+
	+
	+
	+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
	+	Practice this in 30 seconds. Use our free [[:tools:rti-assistant\|RTI Assistant]] — AI-driven drafting, First Appeal, Second Appeal in one place.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:blog-dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act.png?direct&1200 \|blog / dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(blog dpdp rules 2025 amendment to rti act rti right to information india)
	+	metatag-description=(A practitioner note on what changed on 14 November 2025, how the amended clause must be read, and what Public Information Officers, First Appellate...)}}
	+
	+
	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
	+	Did you know? The 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) quietly removed the proviso that said //information which cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen//. It is the most significant structural change to the RTI Act since 2005.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//A practitioner note on what changed on 14 November 2025, how the amended clause must be read, and what Public Information Officers, First Appellate Authorities, and applicants should do differently.//
	+
	+	===== The event =====
	+
	+	On 14 November 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. The notification brought Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 into force. By the operation of that sub-section, clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 stood substituted.
	+
	+	The effect is immediate. Every RTI application pending on or filed after 14 November 2025 is to be decided under the substituted clause.
	+
	+	===== The text: before and after =====
	+
	+	Before the substitution, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act read, in substance, that there shall be no obligation to give a citizen 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 privacy, unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority was satisfied that the larger public interest justified the disclosure. The clause was followed by a proviso that information which could not be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature could not be denied to any person.
	+
	+	After the substitution effected by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, clause (j) reads that there shall be no obligation to give a citizen information which relates to personal information.
	+
	+	The difference is structural. Three elements of the earlier clause are no longer part of the text.
	+
	+	- The public-activity test has been removed.
	+	- The unwarranted-invasion-of-privacy test has been removed.
	+	- The larger-public-interest override has been removed.
	+
	+	The accompanying proviso regarding information that could not be denied to Parliament has also been removed.
	+
	+	===== Definition of "person" under the DPDP Act =====
	+
	+	Clause (j) is now to be read with the DPDP Act's definition of "person". Under Section 2(s) of the DPDP Act, "person" includes an individual, a Hindu undivided family, a company, a firm, an association of persons or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not, the State, and every artificial juristic person not falling within any of the preceding categories.
	+
	+	The definition is wider than the ordinary meaning. Public Information Officers should note two consequences.
	+
	+	First, information relating to a corporate entity, a firm, or an association of persons may fall within the scope of clause (j) if the information is "personal information" with reference to that entity. The position is not identical to the earlier jurisprudence under the unamended clause, which the Supreme Court had developed primarily with reference to natural persons.
	+
	+	Second, information relating to the State as a juristic person is now within the scope of the definition. The implications of this position will be tested in litigation.
	+
	+	===== How the clause must be read =====
	+
	+	The Supreme Court in //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India// (2017) 10 SCC 1 held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court also held that any restriction on a fundamental right must satisfy the proportionality test.
	+
	+	The substituted clause (j) does not displace this constitutional baseline. A Public Information Officer applying clause (j) must therefore read it alongside the proportionality standard and in a manner consistent with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, under which the right to information is derived.
	+
	+	The practical reading is this.
	+
	+	- The Officer must first determine whether the information requested is "personal information" as understood under the DPDP framework.
	+	- Where the information is not personal information, clause (j) does not apply and the application must be decided on its merits.
	+	- Where the information is personal information, the Officer must record a speaking order identifying the information, the nature of the privacy interest, and the legal basis for denial.
	+	- Section 10 of the RTI Act continues to apply. Where a record contains both exempt and non-exempt information, the non-exempt part must be severed and disclosed.
	+	- Section 8(2) of the RTI Act has not been amended. Where a public authority is satisfied that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest, access to the information may be allowed notwithstanding clause (j).
	+
	+	Section 8(2) is therefore the central provision through which the public interest reasoning continues to operate. Officers who previously relied on the larger-public-interest override within clause (j) must now route the same reasoning through Section 8(2).
	+
	+	===== Guidance for Public Information Officers =====
	+
	+	Public Information Officers should consider the following sequence when dealing with an application that seeks information relating to an individual.
	+
	+	- Record whether the information is held by the public authority, fully, partly, or not at all.
	+	- If the information is held, examine whether any exemption under Section 8 or Section 9 applies.
	+	- If clause (j) is invoked, identify the specific privacy interest and the connection between the information and that interest.
	+	- Examine whether Section 10 permits severance of non-exempt portions.
	+	- Examine whether Section 8(2) applies on the facts. Where the application engages a matter of public interest such as the utilisation of public funds, the discharge of statutory duty, or the conduct of a public servant in the course of duty, Section 8(2) must be considered on its own motion.
	+	- Issue a speaking order that sets out the reasoning, the clause invoked, and the relief granted or denied.
	+
	+	A denial without reasons is not a denial in law. The requirement of a speaking order is unaffected by the amendment.
	+
	+	===== Guidance for First Appellate Authorities =====
	+
	+	First Appellate Authorities should note that a routine reliance on the substituted clause (j), without reasoning, is not sustainable in appeal. The authority must examine whether:
	+
	+	- the Public Information Officer has recorded the privacy interest with sufficient particularity;
	+	- severance under Section 10 has been considered;
	+	- Section 8(2) has been considered where the facts engage the public interest;
	+	- the denial is proportionate to the privacy interest asserted.
	+
	+	Where any of these elements is absent, the appellate order should either direct disclosure or remand the matter for a fresh order by the Public Information Officer.
	+
	+	===== Guidance for applicants =====
	+
	+	Applicants seeking information that relates to an individual, an entity, or the State should frame requests with the following elements.
	+
	+	- State the information sought with precision. Broad requests are more likely to attract the clause.
	+	- Where the information concerns a public servant acting in the course of duty, state this element in the application and request the Officer to consider Section 8(2) on its motion.
	+	- Where severance is possible, state the request in terms that permit severance under Section 10.
	+	- In a first appeal or second appeal, the grounds should engage Section 8(2) and the Puttaswamy proportionality standard. A mere assertion of the right to know is unlikely to succeed without a public interest reason tied to the specific information.
	+
	+	===== Pending legal and policy questions =====
	+
	+	Several questions are expected to be decided in coming months.
	+
	+	- The constitutional validity of Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act has been raised in public statements by senior members of the legal community, including a letter from Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and former Chairperson of the Law Commission of India, urging reconsideration of the provision.
	+	- In April 2025, a petition signed by more than one hundred and twenty Opposition Members of Parliament was submitted to the Union Minister of Electronics and Information Technology seeking repeal of Section 44(3).
	+	- Civil society organisations and press bodies have submitted representations during and after the draft rules consultation. The Editors Guild of India and the Press Club of India have both recorded concerns on the effect on journalistic work.
	+	- The Government's position, stated in press releases and parliamentary replies, is that the amendment harmonises the RTI framework with the fundamental right to privacy affirmed in Puttaswamy, and that Section 3 of the DPDP Act preserves disclosures required by other laws and disclosures of information voluntarily placed in the public domain.
	+
	+	The position of Information Commissions on the application of the substituted clause will develop through orders passed in the next cycle of second appeals.
	+
	+	===== Action points =====
	+
	+	* Officers are advised to review Office Memoranda and standing instructions on Section 8(1)(j) and update them to the amended text.
	+	* Training material used for PIO and FAA capacity building should be revised to reflect the routing of public interest reasoning through Section 8(2).
	+	* Applicants who had filed applications before 14 November 2025 and are awaiting reply or appellate decision should expect that the substituted clause will apply to the pending decision.
	+	* Second appeals turning on the earlier text of clause (j) should engage Section 8(2) and Puttaswamy expressly.
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	* The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005).
	+	* The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act 22 of 2023), Section 44(3) and Section 2(s).
	+	* The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on 14 November 2025.
	+	* //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India// (2017) 10 SCC 1.
	+	* //Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal// (2020) 5 SCC 481.
	+	* //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner// (2013) 1 SCC 212.
	+	* Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Release dated 14 November 2025 on notification of the DPDP Rules, 2025.
	+	* Letter of Justice A.P. Shah to the Attorney General, July 2025, on Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act.
	+	* Joint petition of Opposition Members of Parliament to the Union Minister of Electronics and Information Technology, April 2025.
	+
	+	===== Last reviewed =====
	+
	+	19 April 2026
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
	+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
	+	More from the site. [[:file-rti-online-india\|File an RTI online in 2026]] · [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI applications get rejected]] · [[:faq\|The twenty-five-question FAQ]].
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[:act:start\|The RTI Act, 2005]].
	+	* [[:blog:raj-kumar-goyal-chief-information-commissioner\|Raj Kumar Goyal sworn in as Chief Information Commissioner; CIC reaches full strength]].
	+	* [[:blog:rti-at-twenty-commission-report-card-2025\|Right to Information at twenty: the Information Commissions' report card for 2024-25]].
	+
	+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti dpdp section-8 personal-information amendment 2026}}
	+	~~DISCUSSION~~

The Right to Information Act, 2005 — a decade of change, 2015 to 2025

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:37 +0000

2026/04/19 09:27		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== The Right to Information Act, 2005 — a decade of change, 2015 to 2025 ======		====== The Right to Information Act, 2005 — a decade of change, 2015 to 2025 ======
		+
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	Practice this in 30 seconds. Use our free [[:tools:rti-assistant\|RTI Assistant]] — AI-driven drafting, First Appeal, Second Appeal in one place.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{ :social:auto:blog-rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025.png?direct&1200 \|blog / rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025 — RTI Wiki}}

	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti act changes, rti act amendments, rti amendment 2019, dpdp rules 2025, section 8(1)(j) amendment, subhash chandra agarwal, electoral bonds, anjali bhardwaj, rti at twenty, rti commission pendency)		{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti act changes, rti act amendments, rti amendment 2019, dpdp rules 2025, section 8(1)(j) amendment, subhash chandra agarwal, electoral bonds, anjali bhardwaj, rti at twenty, rti commission pendency)
-	metatag-description=(An evaluatory account of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it has been altered between 2015 and 2025 — the 2019 tenure amendment, the 2020 Constitution Bench on the Office of the CJI, the 2024 Electoral Bonds judgment, and the 14 November 2025 DPDP substitution of Section 8(1)(j). With sources.)}}	+	metatag-description=(An evaluatory account of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it has been altered between 2015 and 2025 — the 2019 tenure amendment, the 2020 Constitution Bench on.)}}

-	{{ :blog-rti.png?700 \|Right to Information — a decade of change}}	+	{{ :blog-rti.png?200x113 \|Right to Information — a decade of change}}

	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}		{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
Line 17:		Line 25:
	===== Infographic: the decade at a glance =====		===== Infographic: the decade at a glance =====

-	{{ :rti-timeline-2015-2025.png?1200 \|Timeline infographic: Right to Information Act 2005, a decade of change 2015 to 2025}}	+	{{ :rti-timeline-2015-2025.png?1200x703 \|Timeline infographic: Right to Information Act 2005, a decade of change 2015 to 2025}}

-	//The infographic groups the eleven key milestones of the 2015 to 2025 decade along a horizontal timeline. Amber markers are legislative events (Parliamentary Acts, Rules). Navy markers are judicial events (Supreme Court and High Court judgments). Green markers are administrative events (DoPT Office Memoranda, Commission appointments). Purple marks the 12 October 2025 twenty-year record date.//	+	//The infographic groups the eleven key milestones of the 2015 to 2025 decade along a horizontal timeline. Amber markers are legislative events (Parliamentary Acts, Rules). Navy markers are judicial events (Supreme Court and High Court judgments). Green markers are administrative events (%%DoPT%% Office Memoranda, Commission appointments). Purple marks the 12 October 2025 twenty-year record date.//

	===== Setting the scene: the Act at twenty =====		===== Setting the scene: the Act at twenty =====
Line 75:		Line 83:
	The Delhi High Court in //Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO// (2010) clarified that the third-party notice under Section 11(1) is a matter of natural justice, not a ground of refusal in itself. The Public Information Officer may still disclose against the third party's wishes, with reasons recorded. The case is routinely cited by First Appellate Authorities.		The Delhi High Court in //Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO// (2010) clarified that the third-party notice under Section 11(1) is a matter of natural justice, not a ground of refusal in itself. The Public Information Officer may still disclose against the third party's wishes, with reasons recorded. The case is routinely cited by First Appellate Authorities.

-	==== Delhi HC on PhD theses, December 2024 ====	+	==== Delhi HC on %%PhD%% theses, December 2024 ====

-	In December 2024, the Delhi High Court addressed the disclosure of unpublished PhD theses held in university repositories. The Court held that Section 8(1)(d) commercial confidence does not automatically shield academic theses where the public interest in academic integrity and verification of qualifications is engaged. The judgment re-centred the balancing test under Section 8(2).	+	In December 2024, the Delhi High Court addressed the disclosure of unpublished %%PhD%% theses held in university repositories. The Court held that Section 8(1)(d) commercial confidence does not automatically shield academic theses where the public interest in academic integrity and verification of qualifications is engaged. The judgment re-centred the balancing test under Section 8(2).

	==== Madras HC on public servants' assets, 2024 ====		==== Madras HC on public servants' assets, 2024 ====
Line 100:		Line 108:
	The public interest override has not been removed from the RTI Act. It continues to sit in Section 8(2), which has not been amended. The route to disclosure on public interest grounds now runs through Section 8(2) and not through the text of clause (j).		The public interest override has not been removed from the RTI Act. It continues to sit in Section 8(2), which has not been amended. The route to disclosure on public interest grounds now runs through Section 8(2) and not through the text of clause (j).

-	Evaluatory note. This is the largest legal shift to the Right to Information Act, 2005 since the Act itself was passed. Practitioners must now decide Section 8(1)(j) matters under the substituted clause, apply the Section 8(2) balancing expressly in every case, and address the four-limb proportionality test from //K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Civil society and sections of the press have urged the Parliament to repeal Section 44(3). A formal repeal is not in prospect in the immediate term, but the text of the Act and the shape of the practice will remain subject to Parliamentary attention for the foreseeable future. Practitioners are advised to read the practitioner notes at [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j)]] and [[blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025]].	+	Evaluatory note. This is the largest legal shift to the Right to Information Act, 2005 since the Act itself was passed. Practitioners must now decide Section 8(1)(j) matters under the substituted clause, apply the Section 8(2) balancing expressly in every case, and address the four-limb proportionality test from //K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Civil society and sections of the press have urged the Parliament to repeal Section 44(3). A formal repeal is not in prospect in the immediate term, but the text of the Act and the shape of the practice will remain subject to Parliamentary attention for the foreseeable future. Practitioners are advised to read the practitioner notes at [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j)]] and [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025]].

	===== Civil society and the legal professional response =====		===== Civil society and the legal professional response =====
Line 125:		Line 133:
	===== Related notes on this site =====		===== Related notes on this site =====

-	* [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act]]. The primary practitioner note on the 14 November 2025 amendment.	+	* [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act]]. The primary practitioner note on the 14 November 2025 amendment.
-	* [[blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|Section 8(1)(j) after the DPDP Rules, 2025]]. The file noting, the reply, and the practice.	+	* [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|Section 8(1)(j) after the DPDP Rules, 2025]]. The file noting, the reply, and the practice.
-	* [[blog:raj-kumar-goyal-chief-information-commissioner\|Raj Kumar Goyal sworn in as Chief Information Commissioner; CIC reaches full strength]]. The December 2025 composition note.	+	* [[:blog:raj-kumar-goyal-chief-information-commissioner\|Raj Kumar Goyal sworn in as Chief Information Commissioner; CIC reaches full strength]]. The December 2025 composition note.
-	* [[blog:rti-at-twenty-commission-report-card-2025\|Right to Information at twenty: the Information Commissions' report card for 2024-25]]. The pendency and composition picture.	+	* [[:blog:rti-at-twenty-commission-report-card-2025\|Right to Information at twenty: the Information Commissions' report card for 2024-25]]. The pendency and composition picture.
	* [[:act\|The Right to Information Act, 2005 — current text]]. With amendment overlays at every amended section.		* [[:act\|The Right to Information Act, 2005 — current text]]. With amendment overlays at every amended section.
-	* [[important-decisions:start\|Case law library]]. The curated landmark decisions.	+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]]. The curated landmark decisions.
		+
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	More from the site. [[:file-rti-online-india\|File an RTI online in 2026]] · [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI applications get rejected]] · [[:faq\|The twenty-five-question FAQ]].
		+	</WRAP>

	===== Sources =====		===== Sources =====
Line 151:		Line 170:
	- Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, Delhi High Court, 3 December 2007.		- Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, Delhi High Court, 3 December 2007.
	- Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, Delhi High Court (2010).		- Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, Delhi High Court (2010).
-	- Delhi High Court judgment on PhD theses under the Right to Information Act, December 2024.	+	- Delhi High Court judgment on %%PhD%% theses under the Right to Information Act, December 2024.
	- Madras High Court judgment on public servants' assets under Section 8(1)(j), 2024.		- Madras High Court judgment on public servants' assets under Section 8(1)(j), 2024.

What changed in the RTI Act — citizen-friendly read of 2025-26

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:37 +0000

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI Act amendments 2025, RTI Act 2026, DPDP RTI overlap, section 8 1 j amendment, RTI changes)
	+	metatag-description=(Plain-language summary of every RTI Act amendment and notification effective 2025-26 — DPDP overlap, fee revision debate, CIC vacancies, what to file differently.)}}
	+
	+	====== What changed in the RTI Act — citizen-friendly read of 2025-26 ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:what-changed-in-rti-act-2025-2026-amendments.png?direct&1200 }}
	+
	+	The RTI Act 2005 has had two significant statutory shifts since 2023, plus a flurry of administrative circulars. Here is the citizen view.
	+
	+	===== The DPDP Act 2023 §44(3) — the §8(1)(j) rewrite =====
	+	The DPDP Act 2023, in §44(3), amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Before: personal information could be disclosed if there was an overriding public interest. After: the public-interest carve-out is gone for "personal information" of natural persons. PIOs began rejecting wider categories — service records, beneficiary names, complaint outcomes — citing the new test.
	+
	+	What this means for you: if you can show the information is already in the public domain (gazette, parliament floor, court record, prior CIC order), §44(3) does not apply. Frame your RTI to seek the gazetted/published version, not the personal data.
	+
	+	===== Fee rationalisation debate =====
	+	DoPT issued an Office Memorandum (OM 1/2/2024-IR) proposing Rs. 50 application fee (up from Rs. 10) and Rs. 20/page (up from Rs. 2). After parliamentary objections it was deferred. As of April 2026, Rs. 10 application fee + Rs. 2/page remains the central rule. State rules vary.
	+
	+	===== CIC and SIC vacancies =====
	+	The Information Commissions are running with 40-50% vacancies in 2026. Backlogs at CIC are 24-30 months for second appeals. State commissions worse. Practical impact: rely on First Appeal (FAA) and parallel writ remedies (Article 226) for time-sensitive matters.
	+
	+	===== The §24 schedule expansion threat =====
	+	A 2024 NSCS proposal to add 3 more agencies to the §24 exempt schedule was withdrawn in February 2025. As of April 2026, the original 22-agency schedule (RAW, IB, etc.) stands.
	+
	+	===== What to file differently now =====
	+	* Quote DPDP §44(3) defensively — pre-empt the §8(1)(j) refusal by framing for public-domain facts only.
	+	* Use FAA aggressively — CIC backlog means FAA is your real escalation.
	+	* Bundle CPGRAMS + RTI — parallel pressure where time matters.
	+	* Cite §4(1) suo motu duty — most PA websites are non-compliant; this is leverage.
	+
	+	The Act's spirit holds; its administration has fragmented. Citizens who know the 2025-26 changes file better.
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+	- DPDP Act 2023 §44(3).
	+	- DoPT OM 1/2/2024-IR on fee proposal.
	+	- CIC Annual Report 2024-25.
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>blog rti-amendments DPDP-Act-2023 section-8-1-j CIC-vacancies fee-revision}}