What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

Examiners may ask which Act amended the RTI Act, expecting 'DPDP Act, 2023' and not the older 'Aadhaar Act'. Another trap is swapping 'larger public interest' (old RTI provision) with 'public interest' (general term in Section 8(2) of RTI Act).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Legal Point: Section 44(3) of DPDP Act, 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. 2. Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) hearing the challenge. 3. Target this Committee: Justice B.N. Sri Krishna Committee on data protection.

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 3 of 23

DPDP Act 2023 Amends RTI Act Section 8(1)(j), Creates Blanket Exemption for Personal Information

Q: Which committee, chaired by a former Supreme Court judge, submitted a report and draft bill on data protection in July 2018, as mentioned in the article?

Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee, The article explicitly states that the government constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Justice B.N. Sri Krishna to deliberate on the data protection framework, which submitted its report and draft bill in July 2018.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the amendment to the RTI Act through the DPDP Act, 2023: 1. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 2. The amended provision provides a blanket exemption for disclosing any information related to personal information. 3. The original Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act allowed disclosure of personal information if it served a larger public interest. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

All three, Statement 1 is correct as per the article. Statement 2 is correct as the amendment creates a 'blanket exemption'. Statement 3 is correct as the original RTI provision allowed disclosure if larger public interest justified it. Hence, all three statements are accurate.

Q: In which year did the Supreme Court deliver the landmark judgment in the Puttaswamy case, declaring the right to privacy as a fundamental right?

2017, The article clearly mentions 'The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy (2017) had declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right'. This is a static fact crucial for polity questions.

Q: What is the primary constitutional concern raised by the petitioners challenging the amendment to the RTI Act via the DPDP Act?

It is ultra vires the Constitution as it abridges the right to information., The article states the amendment 'has been challenged in the Supreme Court... on the ground that it is ultra vires the Constitution.' The core issue is the perceived abridgment of the right to information, which the Supreme Court has held as integral to Articles 19 and 21.

PolityCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

25 Feb 2026

~2 min

Source: The Hindu

Key Data:DPDP Act, 2023Section 44(3)Section 8(1)(j)Puttaswamy (2017)Justice B.N. Sri Krishna Committee (2018)

Bodies:Supreme Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, to a Constitution Bench.

2.The amendment replaces a conditional exemption for personal information with a blanket ban, removing the 'larger public interest' clause that previously allowed disclosure.

3.This legal battle tests the balance between the right to privacy (Article 21) and the right to information (integral to Articles 19 & 21), with significant implications for transparency and anti-corruption efforts.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging a key amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act to a Constitution Bench. The amendment, introduced via the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, creates a blanket exemption for disclosing 'personal information', potentially hindering anti-corruption probes. This clash between the fundamental right to privacy and the citizen's right to information is a critical constitutional issue for exam aspirants.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Case Referred ToConstitution Bench of Supreme Court

Landmark Privacy CasePuttaswamy (2017)

Committee ChairpersonJustice B.N. Sri Krishna

DPDP Act PassedAugust 2023

1-Minute Revision

›Case Referred To: Constitution Bench of Supreme Court
›Landmark Privacy Case: Puttaswamy (2017)
›Target this Legal Point: Section 44(3) of DPDP Act, 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) hearing the challenge.
›Target this Committee: Justice B.N. Sri Krishna Committee on data protection.

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Constitutional Conflict

SC refers petitions challenging DPDP Act's RTI amendment to a Constitution Bench, framing it as a clash between privacy (Article 21) and information rights.

🔒

Blanket Exemption

Section 44(3) of DPDP Act amends RTI's Section 8(1)(j), removing the 'larger public interest' exception for disclosing personal information of public officials.

📜

Legislative History

The DPDP Act was enacted following the SC's 2017 Puttaswamy judgment and the recommendations of the Justice B.N. Sri Krishna committee report (July 2018).

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The RTI Act, 2005, under Section 8(1)(j), allowed withholding personal information unless its disclosure was warranted by a larger public interest. This provision was crucial for probing corruption by accessing assets/liabilities of public servants. The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy (2017) declared privacy a fundamental right, prompting the government to enact the DPDP Act, 2023, to create a data protection regime.

Core Analysis & Implications

Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, imposing a blanket exemption for 'personal information'. This removes the balancing test of 'larger public interest'. Consequently, information on procurement, audit reports, or public servant assets can be denied simply by labeling it 'personal'. This severely weakens transparency and anti-corruption tools, as argued in the petitions challenging it as ultra vires the Constitution.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The Supreme Court, while referring the case to a Constitution Bench, hinted it might define 'personal information'. The article suggests repealing the DPDP Act's amendment and reverting to the original Section 8(1)(j), which already provided a proportionate balance between privacy and disclosure. The Court's final ruling will set a crucial precedent for reconciling two fundamental rights.

Key Facts at a Glance

Case Referred ToConstitution Bench of Supreme Court

Landmark Privacy CasePuttaswamy (2017)

Committee ChairpersonJustice B.N. Sri Krishna

DPDP Act PassedAugust 2023

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which committee, chaired by a former Supreme Court judge, submitted a report and draft bill on data protection in July 2018, as mentioned in the article?

Q2Statement-basedMediumUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the amendment to the RTI Act through the DPDP Act, 2023:

1. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

2. The amended provision provides a blanket exemption for disclosing any information related to personal information.

3. The original Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act allowed disclosure of personal information if it served a larger public interest.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

In which year did the Supreme Court deliver the landmark judgment in the Puttaswamy case, declaring the right to privacy as a fundamental right?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC

What is the primary constitutional concern raised by the petitioners challenging the amendment to the RTI Act via the DPDP Act?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from The Hindu

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →

PreviousIndia-EU FTA Signed, Covers 90% Goods; FTP Targets $2 Trillion Exports by 2030 Next Tamil Nadu's Economy: 11.19% Real Growth in 2024-25, 9.21% of India's GDP, and 41% of Electronics Exports

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Madras HC: No Sanction Needed Under BNSS Section 218 for Disproportionate Assets Cases

The Madras High Court has ruled that no prior sanction is required under Section 197 CrPC or Section 218 BNSS to prosecute public servants for disproportionate assets, because such an offence has no nexus with official duty. The ruling, which refused to discharge former DMK Minister M.R.K. Panneerselvam and his family, clarifies a key examiner-relevant dimension of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Stays HC Order Declaring NSEI as 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act Section 2(h)

The Supreme Court has stayed a Delhi High Court order that declared the National Stock Exchange of India (NSEI) a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. This means citizens cannot currently enforce their right to information from NSEI. The case challenges whether a stock exchange, though controlled by the government, should be treated as a public authority.

Polity Current Affairs

Centre Seeks SC Exemption for CSE 2025, 2026 from OBC Creamy Layer Income Test Retroactivity

The Centre has urged the Supreme Court to keep CSE 2025 and 2026 out of the Rohith Nathan judgment's retrospective operation, allowing the older OBC creamy layer income test to continue. It warns that retrospective application would hit 3.7 lakh OBC recruitments since 2016 and trigger widespread litigation across Railways, Banks, Posts and paramilitary.

Polity Current Affairs

CIC Directs CBSE to Charge RTI Fees for Answer Scripts, Upholds Section 22 Override

CIC has ruled that CBSE must charge photocopying fees strictly as per RTI Rules, 2012, and recommended amending its May 2025 circular that barred revaluation for students who obtained answer sheets under RTI. The decision reinforces the overriding effect of Section 22 of the RTI Act over institutional rules.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Issues Notice to Centre on Plea to Ban Polygamy Under Section 82 BNS Uniformly

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of polygamy among Muslims, arguing it violates gender equality and is a primary driver of female destitution. The plea seeks uniform application of Section 82 BNS (bigamy law) and compulsory registration of Muslim marriages. This case could reignite the Uniform Civil Code debate and has implications for personal law reforms.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Clarifies BNSS Section 187(2): Police Custody Available in Parts Up to 15 Days in 40/60 Days

The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju held that Section 187(2) BNSS allows police custody to be granted in parts, not exceeding 15 days in aggregate, during the first 40 or 60 days of detention. It also clarified that Section 38 BNSS does not entitle an accused to continuous physical presence of a lawyer throughout interrogation. This judgment expands investigative flexibility under the new criminal procedure code.

Polity Current Affairs

MMDR Amendment 2026: Section 9D Restricts State Taxes on Mineral-Bearing Land, Federal Row

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 introduces Section 9D, which restricts states from imposing taxes, cesses, or levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing land without central approval. This centralizing move has sparked a federal controversy, as mineral-rich states like Odisha and Chhattisgarh argue it undermines their fiscal autonomy and ignores the 2024 Supreme Court judgment that recognized their taxation power over minerals.

Polity Current Affairs

ECI SIR Process: 93% Inclusion Rate in WB Appeals; SC Hearing on Voter Deletions in Delhi & WB

The ECI's SIR process has led to massive disenfranchisement in West Bengal and Delhi. With only 3.2% of appeals disposed and 93% of those restored, the process is deeply flawed. The Supreme Court is hearing petitions; this has major implications for electoral integrity and universal adult franchise.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

DPDP Act 2023 Amends RTI Act Section 8(1)(j), Creates Blanket Exemption for Personal Information

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Constitutional Conflict

Blanket Exemption

Legislative History

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance