top of page
Search

How to Answer an RTI Request for Personal Information After Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act

Writer: Kaustav Chowdhury
Kaustav Chowdhury
12 hours ago
5 min read

Nearly every account of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is written about duties that commence in 2027. One change is operating now. An RTI request for personal information falls to be decided under a clause that section 44(3) rewrote, and the rewrite removed the test that public information officers had been applying for twenty years.

Step 1: Fix What Is in Force, Because This Part Is

Under the commencement notification G.S.R. 843(E) dated November 13, 2025, section 44(1) and section 44(3) came into force at once, while section 44(2) is in the group that commences eighteen months after publication, in May 2027. So the amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been operative since publication.

That is worth stating plainly to clients and to public authorities, because the surrounding commentary treats the whole Act as a future obligation. On this provision it is not.

Step 2: Read the Substituted Clause

Section 44(3) provides that in section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in sub-section (1), for clause (j), the following clause shall be substituted, namely, information which relates to personal information. That is the whole of the new exemption, in six words.

There is no definition of personal information in the substituted clause and none elsewhere in the Right to Information Act. Any reply that turns on the expression should therefore say what the officer understood it to mean and why the material in question answers that description, rather than asserting the conclusion.

Step 3: Know Exactly What Was Taken Out

The clause that was replaced exempted personal information the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the central or state public information officer or the appellate authority was satisfied that the larger public interest justified disclosure. A proviso added that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

Three things went with it. The requirement of a link to public activity or interest, the unwarranted invasion test, and the officer's own larger public interest override within the clause. A reply that still reasons through those three steps is reasoning under a provision that no longer exists.

Step 4: Do Not Overstate What the Amendment Did

Section 44(3) operates on clause (j) of sub-section (1) and on nothing else. Sub-section (2) of section 8 is untouched, and it allows a public authority to give access notwithstanding the exemptions in sub-section (1) where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

So the public interest route out of an exemption survives, at the level of the sub-section rather than inside the clause. The difference matters in drafting. It is no longer a condition built into the exemption that the officer must work through, but a separate power the authority may exercise, and an applicant who wants disclosure should invoke it expressly.

Step 5: Rewrite the Standard Rejection Paragraph

Most public authorities reject on a template that recites the old clause. That template now misstates the law, and a reply which quotes a provision that has been substituted is vulnerable on appeal whatever its outcome.

Build the new paragraph in two parts. First, identify the material said to be personal information and say why. Second, deal expressly with sub-section (2) if the applicant has raised public interest, recording the weighing rather than omitting it. An authority that does not mention sub-section (2) at all has left the only remaining route unaddressed.

Step 6: Advise the Applicant on the Shift

For an applicant the amendment changes where the argument is made, not whether it can be made. Pressing the point that the information relates to a public activity is now an argument about whether the material is personal information at all, because the public activity limb has gone from the clause.

The public interest case belongs under sub-section (2) and should be pleaded there, with the harm said to be avoided and the benefit said to follow both identified. A bare assertion of public interest, which often sufficed under the old clause, no longer has a home inside the exemption.

Step 7: Keep the Transition on the File

Requests made before publication of the commencement notification and decided after it, and appeals pending across that date, will raise the question of which version of the clause applies. Record the date of the request, the date of the decision and the date of any appeal on every file that touches the exemption.

That record costs nothing to keep and it is the first thing an appellate authority or a court will want. Where the point is genuinely open, say so in the reply rather than choosing a version silently.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Treating section 44 as future law: Section 44(1) and 44(3) came into force on publication of the commencement notification; only section 44(2) waits for the eighteen month point.

  • Quoting the old clause (j): It was substituted in its entirety, including the proviso about Parliament and a State Legislature.

  • Reasoning through the unwarranted invasion test: That test is no longer in the clause.

  • Saying public interest is gone: Sub-section (2) of section 8 is untouched and still permits access where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

  • Asserting that the material is personal information: The substituted clause defines nothing, so the reply has to explain the characterisation.

  • Ignoring sub-section (2) in a reply: It is now the only route out of the exemption, so silence on it is the obvious ground of appeal.

  • Leaving the dates off the file: Requests and appeals straddling the commencement date raise a question the record has to be able to answer.

Key Statutory Provisions

  • Section 44 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Amendments to certain Acts. Sub-section (1) amends the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 to add the Appellate Tribunal under this Act; sub-section (2) amends the Information Technology Act, 2000; and sub-section (3) substitutes clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 with the words information which relates to personal information.

  • Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005: The exemptions from disclosure. Clause (j) of sub-section (1) as substituted now exempts information which relates to personal information, and sub-section (2) continues to allow a public authority to give access where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

Sources and References


Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances.

Comments

bottom of page