By Our Editorial Team
First publised on 2026-10-27 08:00:22
Privacy is a fundamental right. But so is freedom of expression, and the right to information is an essential instrument of democratic accountability. India's data-protection framework must protect all three. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, raises serious questions about whether the balance has been maintained.
The most immediate concern is the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act through Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act. The earlier provision allowed personal information to be disclosed in appropriate cases where the public interest justified it, subject to statutory safeguards. The amended provision removes that express balancing mechanism. Information does not cease to be relevant to public accountability merely because it contains personal details.
Consider a public official's qualifications, the allocation of government benefits or records relating to public expenditure. Such information may contain personal data, but withholding it automatically could frustrate legitimate scrutiny. Privacy must not become a blanket justification for concealing information about the exercise of public power.
The concern extends beyond the RTI framework. Investigative journalism often depends on confidential sources who expose suspected corruption, malpractice and abuse of office. If the law does not adequately protect legitimate journalistic activity and confidential sources, potential whistleblowers may choose silence over the risk of exposure. The resulting loss would be borne not merely by news organisations but by citizens denied information they need to hold institutions accountable.
None of this justifies unrestricted access to personal information. Journalists, too, must respect privacy, and commercial media organisations should not receive a blanket exemption from data-protection obligations. The distinction is between gratuitous intrusion into private life and the responsible use of personal information to establish matters of genuine public interest.
The Supreme Court must examine whether the framework meets constitutional requirements of proportionality and provides adequate safeguards for both transparency and legitimate investigations. Parliament, in turn, should consider a narrowly defined journalistic exemption with appropriate safeguards against abuse, alongside meaningful protection for confidential sources.
A democratic government has a legitimate interest in protecting citizens' personal data. It also has an obligation to remain answerable to them. These objectives are not incompatible. The law must ensure that protecting privacy does not come at the cost of accountability.
A data-protection law should protect the citizen's private life, not the public authority's private dealings.









