RTI After the DPDP Act — What the New Section 8(1)(j) Means for Your Applications
For twenty years, one clause decided some of RTI's most consequential battles: Section 8(1)(j), the "personal information" exemption. It protected privacy — but with a built-in override: information could still be disclosed if a larger public interest justified it, and nothing that could not be denied to Parliament could be denied to a citizen. That balance produced disclosures on officials' assets, appointment irregularities and beneficiary lists.
The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act — administered by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology — rewrote that clause, and with the DPDP regime operational since the Rules were notified in November 2025, the change is now live law. Here's what it means when you file.
What exactly changed
| Before (RTI Act, 2005) | After (as amended by the DPDP Act) |
|---|---|
| Personal information exempt only if disclosure has no relation to public activity, or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy | Exemption simply covers "information which relates to personal information" |
| PIO could disclose if larger public interest justified it | The public-interest override in the clause is gone |
| Proviso: what cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen | Proviso removed |
In short: what was a conditional exemption with a public-interest safety valve became close to a blanket one for anything a PIO labels "personal information".
Why transparency advocates are alarmed
RTI's most celebrated uses often ran through people-shaped information: muster rolls with worker names exposing fake entries in employment schemes, ration-shop beneficiary lists revealing ghost beneficiaries, officials' travel bills and asset declarations, marksheets exposing appointment fraud. Under the amended clause, PIOs have a ready-made ground to refuse all of it — regardless of what it reveals about public money.
The matter is now constitutional: petitions challenging the DPDP Act and Rules — including this amendment — are before the Supreme Court, which issued notice to the Union of India in February 2026 and referred the questions to a larger bench. Until it rules, the amended text stands.
Some PIOs now cite "DPDP" even for plainly non-personal records like tender documents or expenditure statements. The DPDP Act does not exempt official records that contain no personal data. Refusals of that kind are appealable — and worth appealing.
How to draft applications that still work
The amendment covers personal information — not government functioning. Draft accordingly.
- Ask about records and actions, not individuals. "Provide copies of all inspection reports for licence no. X in 2025-26" works; "provide details of the officer who inspected X" invites the exemption.
- Target expenditure and outcomes. Sanctioned amounts, utilisation certificates, completion status, audit paras — none of this is personal information.
- Accept anonymised data. "Number of complaints received and action taken, without names" gives PIOs no exemption to hide behind while still exposing patterns.
- Invoke Section 4. Much of what Section 8(1)(j) now blocks — including many categories of official information — is supposed to be proactively published under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Ask why a Section 4 disclosure hasn't been made; that framing bypasses the personal-information debate entirely.
File central-government applications and first appeals at rtionline.gov.in; second appeals and complaints go to the Central Information Commission, whose decisions are published and searchable — often the fastest way to find a precedent for the exact refusal you are facing.
- Seek your own information freely. The exemption protects others' personal data. Your own file, your own application status, your own service records — always askable.
Rewriting a request that would now be refused
The same underlying question can be framed to invite the exemption or to sidestep it. These are the moves that matter in practice.
| Likely refused now | Reframed to survive |
|---|---|
| "Provide the asset declaration of Officer X." | "Provide the total number of asset declarations filed by officers of this department for 2025-26, and the action taken where declarations were not filed." |
| "Give the names and addresses of beneficiaries under scheme Y." | "Provide the number of beneficiaries under scheme Y per ward, the total amount disbursed, and copies of the social audit reports." |
| "Why was Mr Z appointed over other candidates?" | "Provide the advertised eligibility criteria, the selection procedure approved, the marks/weightage matrix used, and the minutes of the selection committee for recruitment no. XXX." |
| "Provide details of complaints against Officer A." | "Provide the number of complaints received against officials of this office in 2024-25 and 2025-26, and the action taken on each, without names." |
| "Give me the muster roll with worker names." | "Provide the muster roll for work no. XXX with names redacted under Section 10, showing attendance days, wage rate and amounts paid per entry." |
The principle running through all of them: ask about the process, the money and the outcome rather than the person. In most cases the reframed version answers the question you actually cared about — whether public money was spent properly — while giving the PIO nothing to refuse.
Use Section 10 — severance is a right, not a favour
This is the most under-used provision in the Act and the strongest answer to a blanket "personal information" refusal.
Section 10 requires that where a record contains some exempt material, the PIO must release the rest after severing the exempt part. A record is not exempt merely because it contains a name. The lawful response to a muster roll containing personal data is a redacted muster roll, not a refusal.
When you are refused, say so explicitly in your appeal:
The information sought is contained in official records created in the discharge of public duty and relating to the expenditure of public funds. If any portion is claimed to be exempt, Section 10 of the RTI Act requires that access be provided to the remainder after severance. A blanket refusal of the entire record is not sustainable, and I request the severed record along with reasons recorded in writing for withholding any part.
Ask also for the reasons in writing — a PIO refusing must record why, and vague invocations of "DPDP" without reasoning are exactly what Commissions have been setting aside.
If you're refused under the new clause
- File the first appeal within 30 days, arguing the information sought is official, not personal — or is severable (Section 10 lets the PIO release the non-personal part after redaction; demand that severance).
- Cite the record's public character: documents created in the discharge of official duty, spending of public funds, or statutory compliance are not private facts about a person.
- Escalate to the Information Commission if needed — Commissions are still working out the amended clause's limits, and reasoned appeals are shaping that line right now.
Frequently asked questions
Is RTI dead after the DPDP amendment?
No — narrowed, not dead. What the amendment removed was the public-interest override within the personal-information exemption. Everything that is not personal information remains fully askable: expenditure, tenders, sanctions, inspection reports, policy files, utilisation certificates, audit paragraphs. The craft of drafting now matters far more than it did, but the Act's core machinery is intact.
Can I still get information about a government officer?
About their official actions, generally yes; about them as a person, much less so. Decisions taken, files noted, approvals granted and money sanctioned are records of public functioning. Asset declarations, service records and personal details now sit squarely within the widened exemption. Frame around the decision, not the decision-maker.
Can I still ask for my own information?
Always. The exemption protects other people's personal data, not yours. Your own file, your application status, your service record, your pension papers, your examination marksheet — none of that can be refused to you on this ground. If a PIO cites 8(1)(j) against your own information, that is a straightforwardly bad refusal and worth appealing.
The PIO refused citing "DPDP" for a tender document. Is that lawful?
Almost certainly not. The DPDP Act does not exempt official records containing no personal data, and tender documents, expenditure statements and contract details are not personal information. This kind of over-broad refusal is common right now as PIOs adjust, and it is exactly what the first appeal exists for. Cite Section 10 and demand reasons in writing.
What is the Supreme Court likely to do?
Genuinely unresolved. Petitions challenging the DPDP framework, including this amendment, are before the Court, which issued notice and referred the questions onward — so the position may change. Until it rules, the amended text is the operative law and you should draft on that basis rather than on how you think the case should come out.
Does the amendment affect state RTI applications too?
Yes. Section 8(1)(j) sits in the central RTI Act, which governs both central and state public authorities, so the amended clause applies across the board. The forums differ — your State Information Commission rather than the CIC on second appeal — but the exemption is the same.
Should I still file if I expect to be refused?
Yes, for two reasons. Refusals are appealable, and appeals are free — a well-argued first appeal frequently produces the information. And the boundaries of the amended clause are being defined right now by exactly these appeals; Commissions are actively working out what counts as personal information. Applications that are never filed shape nothing.
The bottom line
The DPDP amendment tilted RTI's privacy balance sharply toward non-disclosure, and the Supreme Court will have the final word. Until then, the practical craft matters more than ever: chase records, money and outcomes rather than named individuals, demand redaction instead of accepting blanket refusal, and appeal. The right to know is narrower than it was — but only for those who draft carelessly.
How this guide is made
Written and fact-checked by the Awareness360 editorial team from primary sources — RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, the Income Tax Department and Government of India portals — with links to the originals in the text above. Last reviewed on 12 Aug 2026. This is general educational information for Indian readers, not professional financial, legal or tax advice.
Spotted something out of date? Tell us and we'll correct it — see our editorial policy.