India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, or DPDP Act, came as a big step to protect people’s personal data in the digital world. It was passed on August 11, 2023, after years of talks and drafts. The law aims to balance the need for data use in business and government with the right of people to keep their info safe. But one part of it, Section 44(3), has sparked a lot of anger. This section changes the Right to Information Act, 2005, or RTI Act, in a way that many say hides government actions behind a wall of secrecy. It makes it easier for officials to say no to RTI requests by calling info “personal.” This could stop people from finding out about corruption or wrongdoings in public offices.
The RTI Act has been a strong tool for common people since 2005. It lets anyone ask for info from government bodies to check if things are fair and clean. Before the change, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act allowed sharing personal info if it was in the public interest or linked to public work. Now, Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act replaces that with a simple rule: no sharing of “information which relates to personal information.” Critics say this is like putting a lock on the door to truth. It might help hide names of corrupt officials, loan defaulters, or even beneficiaries of welfare schemes. Even though the full DPDP Act will start working only by May 2027, this RTI change kicked in right away in November 2025 when the rules were notified. This has made activists and experts worry that the government is quick to cut transparency but slow to give data rights to citizens.
In this article, we look at what Section 44(3) really means, why people are upset, and how it could change India’s fight for open government. We also hear from experts and see what the future might hold.
What is the DPDP Act and Section 44(3)?
The DPDP Act is India’s first full law on data protection. It covers how companies and government handle personal data in digital form. Personal data means things like names, addresses, or bank details that can point to a person. The Act sets rules for getting consent, keeping data safe, and punishing those who break the rules. It also sets up a Data Protection Board to watch over things.
Section 44 of the Act makes changes to other laws to fit with the new data rules. Subsection (3) targets the RTI Act. The old RTI Section 8(1)(j) said personal info could be kept secret unless it was about public activity or if sharing it served a bigger public good, like exposing corruption. It also said no sharing if it invaded privacy without reason. But the new version from DPDP just says: “information which relates to personal information.” No more checks for public interest. This means any info linked to a person can be hidden, even if it’s important for the public to know.
For example, if you ask under RTI for names of people who got big loans from public banks and didn’t pay back, officials might say it’s personal info and deny it. Or details about how government schemes are given out could be blocked. The government says this protects privacy, but many feel it goes too far.
How Section 44(3) Changes the RTI Act
The RTI Act was made to make government work open. It has helped uncover many scams, like in ration cards or road contracts. The old rule in Section 8(1)(j) had a balance: protect privacy but allow info if needed for public good. Courts have used this to order sharing of things like officials’ assets or exam marks.
Now, with the change, that balance is gone. The new clause is short and broad. It doesn’t say anything about public interest or if the info is about public duties. This could lead to more denials of RTI requests. Public info officers might play safe and say no to anything that looks personal.
One big worry is that it could hide corruption. Think about cases where RTI showed fake names in welfare lists or favors to friends in jobs. Now, those details might be called personal and kept secret. Also, journalists use RTI to dig up stories on misuse of power. This change might make their work harder, hurting free press.
The government argues that another part of RTI, Section 8(2), still allows sharing if public interest is stronger than harm. But experts say that’s not enough because the new rule makes personal info a full no-go zone. IT Secretary S Krishnan said in 2025, “There is no dilution, and privacy is now better protected.” But many disagree.
Criticism from Experts and Activists
Many groups and experts have spoken out against Section 44(3). The Internet Freedom Foundation called it “an attack on the ability for citizens to hold the government accountable.” Apar Gupta, a lawyer and founder of the group, said, “The change to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not merely a technical amendment; it is an attack on the ability for citizens to hold the government accountable.”
Anjali Bhardwaj, an RTI activist, said on X in September 2025, “The IT ministry’s claim that the DPDP Act doesn’t weaken the RTI Act is blatantly misleading & false. Section 44(3) of DPDP Act clearly amends section 8(1)(j) of the RTI law to exempt disclosure of all personal information.” She added that this could stop people from getting names of corrupt contractors or welfare beneficiaries.
The National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) said the change exempts all personal data from RTI, no matter the public interest. They worry it blocks access to info that shows corruption or misuse of power.
In a column on Bar and Bench in December 2025, lawyer Shivam Jadaun wrote, “Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act reverses this framework. It has replaced Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act with a sweeping clause: ‘Information that is related to personal information.'” He called it a move back to secretive times.
Even Congress MP Jairam Ramesh called for repeal, saying it’s brazen bullying. On X, users like R K Mishra shared the Bar and Bench piece, noting the irony that data rights are delayed but RTI cut is instant.
Impact on Transparency and Democracy
Transparency is key to democracy. The RTI Act has empowered millions to question power. But with this change, that power shrinks. It could make government less accountable. For instance, in banks, RTI has revealed big defaulters. Now, their names might be hidden as personal info.
In welfare, knowing who gets benefits helps check if it’s fair. Hiding names could let fake claims go on. Also, for human rights, RTI has shown police wrongs or jail issues. Personal details are often needed.
The change came when DPDP rules were notified in November 2025. But the main data protection parts start later. This makes some think the government wanted to cut RTI first.
Experts say this ignores past advice. The Justice Srikrishna Committee in 2018 said exemptions should be narrow. The AP Shah Committee in 2012 warned against letting data law override RTI.
In the end, while privacy is important, this blanket rule might do more harm than good to India’s open society.
Government’s Defense and Counter Arguments
The government says the DPDP Act strengthens privacy without hurting RTI. They point to Supreme Court rulings like Puttaswamy case, which made privacy a basic right. Attorney General R Venkataramani backed this, saying no weakening of RTI.
They claim Section 8(2) of RTI still lets info out if public good is bigger than harm. So, the change just removes a repeat rule. But critics say the new wording makes it a full ban, hard to override.
Some say it’s needed for digital times, where data leaks hurt people. But many feel the old RTI had enough safeguards.
What Happens Next? Calls for Repeal and Reforms
Many want Section 44(3) repealed. Groups like IFF and NCPRI have petitions. MPs like Dr Syed Naseer Hussain urged rethink in November 2025.
Courts might step in if cases come. But for now, RTI users face more hurdles.
India needs laws that protect privacy and keep government open. Maybe tweaks to bring back public interest check.
FAQs
What does Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act do?
It changes Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to ban sharing any “information which relates to personal information.” This removes the old rule that allowed disclosure if it was in public interest or about public work. Now, it’s a straight no for personal data, making it harder to get info from government. This started in November 2025, even as other DPDP parts wait till 2027.
Why are people worried about this change?
People fear it will hide important info, like names in corruption cases or welfare lists. It could help officials avoid accountability. Activists say it breaks the balance between privacy and transparency, hurting democracy. For example, RTI has exposed many scams, but now personal details might be blocked.
Does the DPDP Act really weaken the RTI Act?
Yes, according to experts. The old RTI had ways to share info if needed for public good. Now, that’s gone for personal data. Government says no, because other parts allow overrides, but critics say it’s not the same. Anjali Bhardwaj called the government’s claim “misleading.”
What is personal information under this law?
It’s any data that links to a person, like name, address, or job details. But in RTI, it could include public records too. The broad meaning worries people, as officials might use it to deny many requests.
Can this be fixed or repealed?
Yes, through Parliament or courts. Groups are pushing for repeal. If RTI denials rise, cases might go to court. Experts like Apar Gupta say it’s an attack on accountability and needs change.
How does this affect common people?
Common people use RTI to check government work, like scheme benefits or complaints. Now, if info is called personal, they might not get it. This could mean less power to fight wrongs.