"RTI's Personal Information Exemption Narrows Transparency Duty"
Public Information Officer (PIO)
official designated to receive and respond to RTI requests within statutory timelines.
Section 8(1)(j)
RTI Act clause exempting personal information from mandatory disclosure.
Democracy is often described as government 'of the people, by the people, for the people.' Because citizens are the ultimate owners of information the state holds, the Right to Information Act, 2005 starts from a default rule: government-held information must be disclosed to citizens on request. The Act operationalises Article 19(1)(a), the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, since informed speech requires access to facts. Courts have also read a right to know into Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty.
The RTI Act was never absolute. Section 8 lists exemptions covering matters like national security and cabinet deliberations, and, under Section 8(1)(j), 'personal information.' As originally enacted, this clause protected personal information with no bearing on any public activity, unless the Public Information Officer (PIO) was satisfied that a larger public interest justified disclosure. A proviso ensured parity: information that could not be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature could not be denied to an ordinary citizen either.
This balance shifted with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). Its Section 44(3) amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It removed the 'larger public interest' test and dropped the Parliament-parity proviso, so personal information now stands exempt from disclosure without any weighing exercise. This followed the Supreme Court's recognition, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), that privacy is intrinsic to Article 21. Privacy and disclosure, once balanced case by case, have effectively been decided in privacy's favour by statute.
The RTI Act works through a three-tier structure. A citizen files a request with a PIO, who under Section 7 must reply within 30 days, or 48 hours where life or liberty is at stake. If a request lands with the wrong authority, Section 6(3) requires transfer within five days. A dissatisfied applicant can file a first appeal within the same public authority, and then a second appeal, under Section 19, with the Central or State Information Commission. Commissions can also act on complaints under Section 18. Section 20 lets a Commission fine an errant PIO for refusal, delay, or false replies, while Section 19(8)(b) separately allows compensation to the affected citizen.
Section 8(1)(j), before amendment, required PIOs to weigh privacy harm against public interest before refusing a request about a named individual, such as an official's qualifications, assets, or conduct in office. …
Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement ?
Under which Article of the Constitution of India is the 'Right to Privacy' protected?
Consider the following statements regarding Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
1.As originally enacted, it allowed a Public Information Officer to disclose personal information if satisfied that a larger public interest justified it.
2.The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 removed this public interest test from Section 8(1)(j).
3.The 2023 amendment also removed the proviso that information which could not be denied to Parliament could not be denied to a citizen.
How many of the above statements are correct?
The Supreme Court recognised the Right to Privacy as an intrinsic part of which fundamental right, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)?
Match List-I (Provision of the RTI Act, 2005) with List-II (Content) and select the correct answer using the codes below:
List-I:
A.Section 6(3)
B.Section 7
C.Section 19
D.Section 20
List-II:
1.Penalty on Public Information Officer
2.Time limit for furnishing information
3.Transfer of a misdirected application
4.Appeal to the Information Commission
Prior to the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, the salary, allowances and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner were equated with those of which functionary?
Consider the following statements about the appellate structure under the Right to Information Act, 2005:
1.The first appeal against a Public Information Officer's decision lies with a senior officer within the same public authority.
2.The second appeal lies with the Central or State Information Commission.
3.The Information Commission can also examine complaints suo motu.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account