Published On: July 22nd 2026
Authored By: Akash Sajith
Amity University, Mumbai
I. Abstract
This research paper will give a thorough legal analysis on the Right to Information Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, on how the acts function independently and their enforcement in society. This study also discusses the interrelation and conflicts of the Right to Information Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, how the acts majorly influence the fundamental rights of citizens under the Constitution of India, and how they evaluate maintaining a balance between transparency, accountability, and privacy in the digital era
II. Introduction
A. Right to Information Act 1923
The Right to Information Act 1923 was enacted to remove the Official Secret Act 1923 which was created by the British under colonial rule to as it always kept documents locked away from the public view and had zero transparency and accountability where the government took any decision or any action and it became binding on the country and could not be questioned by the citizens, Right to Information Act 2005, its objective was to create a mode of transparency between the government functioning and the citizens of India and the government, this was done in order to keep transparency and proper functioning of the government to reduce corruption in various aspects.it provides a huge set of powers to the citizen in order to understand their government and question or hold the government accountable about any function or act of the government or public authority,
B. Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
Why this a important role is because, As we know data in today’s digital world can be compromised or leaked easily or used maliciously by organization’s or by the government for various reasons or to blackmail a person or to threaten someone, in order to safeguard citizens the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 was enforced in order to keep track of how organization and the government make use of such digital data or personal data of individual’s. It also articulates how data should be utilized or processed by the organizations and by the government bodies. It makes consent the first priority, every organization or government body needs in order to acquire the individual’s personal data, and secondly, privacy is also a very important role in the DPDP Act as it ensures that that individuals data is neither leaked nor used for wrongful acts by the organization or government body.
These two acts play a very important role in today’s world, but these acts have collisions in their provisions where one provision overshadows another provision in another act, which raises a lot of questions about which act to follow and how do both the Acts balance each other and are enforceable together. A proper legal analysis of both acts will be discussed in this paper to properly articulate whether both acts can be balanced together in data protection, as well as in the right to information.
III. Transparency and Privacy
Right to Information Act plays a major role in the transparency of the governments and public authorities work it provides citizens with the rights to demand for answers from the government if they have doubts about their work this reduces corruption and makes the government accountable for its action against the citizens under section 3 of Right to information Act specifies that all citizens have the right to information act[1], the Supreme court of India specifically makes Right to Information Act a part of the Constitution of India, Article 19 (1)(a), freedom of speech and expression[2] it clearly articulates transparency in every aspect to boost citizen empowerment to stand up against corruption done by the government or by the public authorities. It consists of Whistle Blowers who are a part of exposing corruption of the government and the public authorities to remove corruption, whistle blowers are important key individuals who empower citizens’ empowerment against corruption. Every state has a Public Information’s Officer who is in charge of providing the demanded information by the citizens, and can only deny information if it fall under section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, it tries to balance transparency with need to protect national security, personal privacy, no hindrance to the law, sensitive information, commercial secrets and no information can be leaked from the parliament.[3] This makes it very important in certain cases, but section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act gives even more freedom to citizens, it specifies that public authorities may allow access to information if the public interest is higher than the danger of the protected interest,[4] this clearly gives huge amount of power to citizens to access any type of information under section 8(1) of the RTI act which includes personal information as well, which is an infringement of right of privacy when questioned in court.[5] The public has the right to approach and file an application to the senior information officer if the PIO has rejected providing the information within thirty days its more than flexible for the citizens to approach the court and if still are not satisfied with the answer, the citizen may approach the appellate court, which falls under the Central Information Officer or the State Information Officer, and get the demanded answers.
Whereas The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 protects the privacy of personal data under Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 which specifies the removal and the eradication of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to information Act 2005,[6] section 8(1)(j) of the RTI act which specifies that personal data won’t be provided unless and until the public information officer or state information officer or the appellate authority find that public interest justified for the disclosure of personal details.[7] The DPDP Act upholds consent above information on personal details regardless of public interest therefore upholding the right to privacy that is protected under the constitution of India, the informational privacy framework was laid down in the case K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union Of India,[8] The Supreme Court laid down that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under part 3 of the Constitution, which is in relation of article 21, Right to Life and Liberty.[9] The court emphasized that right to privacy is a very important part of individual anatomy and personal liberty also specified that individuals have the right to opt for any choice or inclusion by the government in any aspect.it it holds privacy as the utmost important as it fulfils a lot of criteria under Article 21 where consent falls under liberty Justice D.Y Chandrachud J. Specified in his opinion that privacy plays very crucial part in liberty and dignity and even allows human autonomous decisions, he also specifies that the right to privacy is very crucial inherent part of the of the fundamental right of an individual control over their choice and personality.[10] In order for non-conflict of the acts, the court enforces the Harmonious Construction principle in order to keep both acts in valid enforcement and not one overshadowing the other.
IV. Conflict of framework RTI and DPDP Act
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 strengthens the privacy laws in modern India in various factors, but the main concerns of its framework lie with its interaction with the Right To Information Act 2005 framework, which raises questions about government accountability, transparency, and access to information, which is a huge hindrance to the public. RTI has framework of transparency but DPDP over rules and protects it under the privacy which makes it a major conflict, in a situation where a high ranking officer of the constitutional body and the public want to acquire personal information about the high ranking officer for the actions committed by the officer by using the framework of RTI for transparency of government issues is now eradicated due the framework of DPDP act which eradicates the revealing of personal information of public authorities under any circumstances even if public interest is large which weakens the Right to Information Act to make Public authorities accountable for their actions by removing the public interest for the personal information of public authorities it allows main bureaucrats to shield the political leaders credentials, and any disciplinary records from the public, on the other hand whistle blowers won’t be able to expose corruption due fear of legal measure as the information may constitute under the Right to Privacy which could make legal issues for the whistleblowers. In the Supreme Court case R.Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu, the court specified that, in the case of public officials, the right to privacy, or for that matter, or for collecting damages, is not available with respect to discharging their official duties[11]. This judgment clearly clarifies that the right to privacy on accountability for actions conducted by Public Authorities is not available. Even though Courts emphasize heavily on the principle of harmonious construction, it does not rule out the factor of the transparency of the government in understanding the illegal actions or corruption conducted by high-ranking officers, which is protected under the DPDP Act section 44(3). On the other hand if Right to information provides information for the larger public demand, it will totally eradicate the core principle of the right to privacy which is protected under the Constitution of India, under the DPDP Act it allows the individual to eradicate the data once the purpose for the data collection is completed from the government or edit the data provided to the government on any circumstances, but in the case for RTI Act if data provided is a part of government records it becomes a risky area as it falls totally under public boundaries and wont fall under the DPDP Act principles, In the case Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam the court laid down that the disclosure of personal information of public authorities which have no relationship to any public activity pr public interest, which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. If the Central Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, or the appellate authority found the information relevant to public interest or public activity, then an appropriate order could be passed, but the petitioner cannot claim it as a matter of right. This judgment highlights the misuse of the Right to Information Act 2005 or gaining information without any relation to the public activity or interest of the general public. This is why the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 plays a major role in individual privacy.[12]
V. Balancing of the Two Acts
The two acts do have concerns about their interpretation of their frameworks overlapping but it still can be balanced with the addressing its issues in a appropriate manner to understand that both the acts are not made in order to cause conflicts with each other they are made in order to understand on different viewpoints but act as one in their enforcement, in the case Supreme Court Of India vs Shubash Chandra Agarwal the court lays down that between the two fundamental rights, there is no requirement to see the two rights in such a manner that would further the conflict, it is required that a balancing formula is applied which is applicable in individual cases.[13] As laid down by the court, it clearly emphasizes the fact that it should not be considered as a yes or no question it should be weighed, a determination must be made in order to balance the public interest served through disclosure with the possible adverse punishments arising from disclosure of personal information the court provides some essentials in order to get a clear understanding of on how RTI act has to be balanced with privacy. Public interest can acquire if there is nature and the content and the consequences of disclosing such information could hamper the public due to corruption or cause a riot, if a person has deliberately kept a confidential secret and why is there a legitimate reason?, do these obligation fall under trade secrets, whether the party trying to acquire information are gaining for exposing corruption or for personal benefit in a political view for a party, the manner the government received the information on what basis, does blocking such information cause sever violence to free speech and the amount the required amount necessary to protect the secret. [14]These all factors were laid down in by the court in order to balance the system between the right to information and privacy. This gives us a clear understanding on what basis can DPDP act and RTI act can be balanced. The court continues to emphasize the doctrine of Harmonious Construction, which plays an important role in weighing out the importance of how much information can be released in accordance to right to information and the privacy of the individual. The parliament should make more advancement on streamlining the rules for higher officers and implementing more transparency while keeping in mind the DPDP Act framework of right to privacy and in order to eradicate corruption, partiality and malpractice in the system and help in the balance of the two frameworks.
VI. Conclusion
This balance of two frameworks DPDP act and RTI act play a very significant role in the implementation of the right to information and right to privacy, which are two major factors in shaping the legal framework for the enforcement on the society, the two acts need to depend on each other for protection of individual privacy and for transparency because even if one factor is left out will lead to corruption and malpractice it can be used easily in the case of right to information but in the case of right to privacy can endanger a person with release of personal detail at public demand which would directly violate the fundamental right to privacy protected under the constitution and also violate the right to Information which is protected under the constitution, it also answers the question not completely but partially as there are certain areas where both frameworks conflict but courts have continuously emphasized on the doctrine of harmonious construction in order to balance both the frameworks this research paper showed us a that two frameworks are not completely balanced but with the help of harmonious construction and parliament making the laws more strict keeping in mind privacy as well transparency can help in the appropriate and non overlapping of right to information and right to privacy.
VII. References
[1] Right to Information Act 2005 (India) sec 3 of 2005, page 3.
[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a).
[3] Right to Information Act 2005 (India) sec 8(1) of 2005, page 7.
[4] Right to Information Act 2005 (India) sec 8(2) of 2005, page 7.
[5] Right to Information Act 2005 (India) sec 8(1)(j) of 2005, page 7
[6] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, s 44(3).
[7] Right to Information Act 2005 (India) sec 8(1)(j) of 2005, page7.
[8] Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[9] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[10] Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, opinion of Chandrachud J, section ‘R. Essential nature of privacy’.
[11] R Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264 [26]
[12] Canara Bank v C S Shyam (2018) 11 SCC 426.
[13] Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481
[14] Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 (4)
