In 2005, the right to information (RTI) Act emerged as a pillar of hope for Indian democracy, empowering citizens to hold powers accountable. Nearly two decades later, a new shadow looms over this landmark law: Section 44 (3) of the digital personal data protection Act (DPDP), 2023. Passed to safeguard personal data in an increasingly digital world, the DPDP Act has sparked fierce debate with its amendment to the RTI Act's section 8(1)(j).

What was once a carefully balanced exemption for personal information has been replaced with a blanket shield, raising alarms among activists, journalists and citizens alike. Is this a necessary step to protect privacy, as the government claims, or an assault on transparency that could erode the RTI Act's essence? This article delves into the specifies of the section 44 (3), its implications for the RTI Act, and the broader clash between privacy and the public's right to know. As India navigates this legal crossroads, the stakes couldn't be higher for its democratic fabric.

What is DPDP Act, 2023?

The digital personal data protection act 2023 (DPDP ACT) is a law enacted in India to regulate how personal data is collected, stored, processed and managed. It aims to protect individuals' privacy while ensuring that business and government can process data responsibility.

For Instance:  suppose You have deactivate your Instagram account or you may have deleted your photos , you may feel like you have deleted your data , but the reality is much more complex , you are not forgotten and your data is still persists somewhere that's why this particular act was introduced that I have a right to be forgotten this is my data and I a data principal users have the right to be forgotten .

Understanding Section 44(3) Of The DPDP Act

Section 44 (3) of the Digital personal data protection Act ,2023, brings a significant change to the right to information (RTI) Act, 2005. Specifically, it rewrites section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, which deals with when information can be kept private. The new rule is straightforward: any "personal information "can now be withheld from the public, no exceptions needed. This means that if something is considered personal like person's name, address, or other private details it doesn't have to be shared, full stop.

Compare this to the original RTI rule, and the difference is stark. Earlier, personal information could still be revealed if it served a larger public good like exposing corruption or if sharing it didn't unfairly invade someone's privacy. Authorities had to weigh these factors carefully before saying no. Now, that balance is gone. Section 44(3) makes it simpler for officials to block requests by just calling the information "personal", without explaining why it should stay hidden. it's a shift that sounds small but changes a lot.

How The RTI Act Under Threat?

The amendment introduced by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act weakens the transparency that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, was built to protect. Under the original RTI law, authorities could only withhold personal information if it didn't serve the public interest or if sharing it would wrongly invade someone's privacy. That test is now gone. With the new rule, officials can simply label information as "personal" and refuse to share it no justification required. This makes it far easier for them to deny requests, reducing the accountability the RTI Act once ensured.

For example, imagine a public official involved in misconduct, like misusing funds. Before, citizens could use the RTI Act to access details about their actions if it mattered to the public. Now, those same details could be hidden by calling them "personal," even if they affect everyone. This shift closes doors that were once open.

The privacy argument:
On the other side of the debate, supporters of Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act argue it strengthens a key right. In 2017, the Supreme Court of India declared privacy a fundamental right, a decision that reshaped how we view personal information. The DPDP Act, including this amendment, aligns with that ruling by putting a stronger shield around people's private details. In today's digital age—where data breaches and misuse are all too common—the intent is to protect citizens from having their personal lives exposed without good reason. For instance, details like someone's bank account or health records shouldn't be easily accessed, and the DPDP Act aims to ensure that.

However, this protection comes with a catch. The amendment doesn't strike a balance between privacy and the public's right to know. Unlike the original RTI Act, which allowed personal information to be shared when it served a greater good, Section 44(3) offers no such middle ground. Critics say this all-or-nothing approach goes too far, safeguarding privacy at the cost of transparency. While the goal of data protection is valid, the lack of flexibility raises questions about whether the cure might harm more than it heals.

Implications For Democracy

The changes brought by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act ripple far beyond legal texts—they strike at the heart of India's democracy. The RTI Act, 2005, gave citizens the power to watch over those in charge, ensuring public oversight kept authorities in check. Now, with personal information easier to hide, that power weakens. Less access to information means less ability to question decisions or spot wrongdoing. Worse still, this opens the door for misuse. Officials could bury inconvenient truths—say, about mismanaged projects or favoritism—by simply calling them "personal," dodging accountability altogether. This shift pulls away from the RTI's core belief: transparency should come first.

For a country like India, where democracy thrives on active citizens and an open government, this is a big deal. The RTI Act has long been a tool to uphold those values, exposing corruption and empowering people. Globally, nations grapple with the same tug-of-war between protecting data and keeping governance open. While privacy matters, tilting too far from transparency risks dimming the democratic spirit India has worked hard to build. Section 44(3) forces us to ask: can we protect one right without wounding another?

Conclusion
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act pits two vital rights against each other: the need to protect privacy and the duty to keep government open. The goal of safeguarding personal data in a digital world is worthy—no one wants their private details misused. Yet, the amendment's heavy-handed approach threatens to dim the RTI Act's shine.

For years, this law has uncovered corruption, given citizens a voice, and held democracy together. Now, by making it easier to hide information, that legacy is at risk. As the DPDP Act waits for its final rules, India faces a crucial choice. Can it find a way to balance privacy and transparency, or will secrecy take over?

The answer isn't clear yet, but the stakes are. Activists and everyday people keep sounding the alarm, reminding us that the right to know isn't just a perk—it's a foundation of trust between citizens and those in power. If that foundation cracks under the weight of privacy concerns, we might lose more than we gain. It's a tension worth wrestling with: how do we stay safe without shutting out the light?

Also Read:

• GDPR v/s DPDP Act: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Data Protection Frameworks
• Evolution of Data Protection in India; Detailed Analysis