Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 was substituted by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 — effective from the date the DPDP Rules, 2025 were notified (14 November 2025). The clause now exempts personal information of any person without the earlier “larger public interest” proviso. The override has moved to Section 8(2). Section 20 penalties, Section 7(1) timelines, the Section 11 third-party procedure and appellate architecture are unchanged.

If you wrote RTI replies before 14 November 2025: you now need to rewrite your §8(1)(j) boilerplate and apply the §8(2) balancing test explicitly. Everything else stays the same.

• §7(1) 30-day timeline — unchanged
• §7(1) proviso 48-hour life-and-liberty — unchanged
• §11 third-party procedure — unchanged (including the Muniyappan standard)
• §10 severability rule — unchanged
• §19 First and Second Appeal architecture — unchanged
• §20 penalty regime — Rs 250/day, max Rs 25,000 — unchanged
• §24 exempt organisations — unchanged
• §2 definitions (information, public authority, record) — unchanged
• The other nine §8(1) sub-clauses (a) through (i) — unchanged

Old boilerplate (pre-14 Nov 2025):

3. The information sought is personal information within the meaning of
§8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The disclosure would amount to unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of the individual. No larger public interest has
been shown. The information is not of the kind that cannot be denied to
Parliament.

New boilerplate (post-14 Nov 2025):

3. The information sought is "personal information" within the meaning of
§8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 (as substituted by §44(3) of the DPDP Act,
2023, effective 14 November 2025). The §8(1)(j) exemption attaches
automatically to personal information without a separate "public-interest"
test at this stage.

4. The applicant has [not/expressly] invoked public interest. [If not:]
§8(2) balancing is therefore not engaged. [If yes:] Applying §8(2), the
following public interest is asserted: [state]. The harm from disclosure
is: [state]. On balance, the public interest [does / does not] outweigh
the harm because [state the specific reason]. Disclosure is [permitted /
refused] accordingly.

The structural change is two-step reasoning instead of one — first classify as personal, then (separately) balance under §8(2) only if public interest is raised.

The amendment does not overrule the existing case-law. It re-positions the analysis:

• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (SC 2012) — service records as personal information. Reinforced by the amendment. The proposition holds unchanged.
• CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC 2019) — CJI's office is a public authority; judges' personal information subject to balancing. Structural reading unchanged — only the statutory basis of the balancing moved from §8(1)(j) proviso to §8(2).
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI (SC 2017) — privacy as a fundamental right. Elevated in relevance — proportionality analysis under §8(2) must now be explicit.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (SC 2011) — answer scripts disclosable; §8(1)(e) fiduciary narrow. Untouched — this was a §8(1)(e) decision, not §8(1)(j).

The broader common-law doctrine on “personal information”, “public activity” and “public interest” survives. The amendment is statutory re-organisation, not doctrinal overhaul.

The DPDP Act, 2023 is India's general personal-data-protection law. It applies to:

• Data Fiduciaries — entities that determine the purpose and means of processing personal data.
• Data Principals — the individuals whose data is processed.

Public authorities under the RTI Act are typically Data Fiduciaries under DPDP for the personal data they hold. They must:

• Obtain consent for processing (with carve-outs for legitimate State functions).
• Limit processing to the stated purpose.
• Honour data-principal rights — access, correction, erasure, consent withdrawal, grievance redressal.

Tension with RTI. Where the RTI Act requires disclosure and the DPDP Act restricts it, §22 of the RTI Act gives the RTI Act overriding effect to the extent of inconsistency — except that §8(1)(j) itself has now been rewritten by DPDP §44(3). Harmony is the dominant reading: §8(1)(j) + §8(2) operate within RTI's ecosystem; DPDP applies on top for non-RTI-disclosure processing (retention, consent, purpose-limitation).

Q1: Can I still get a public servant's salary under RTI?

Yes. Salary scales, pay grades and designations are not “personal information” under §8(1)(j) — they are matters of public record and typically fall under §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure. Detailed take-home figures after tax, loan and advance deductions may be treated as personal; the distinction turns on detail level and a defensible public-interest nexus.

Q2: What about a third party's income-tax returns?

No. Third-party ITRs are personal financial information, absolutely protected under §8(1)(j) post-amendment. Delhi HC has held this explicitly (see ITRs under RTI, Delhi HC 2020).

Q3: Can I still get Aadhaar / biometric data of another person?

No. Absolutely protected under §8(1)(j) of the RTI Act + §§28, 33, 54 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 + DPDP Act, 2023. No §8(2) override reaches this data.

Q4: Does this affect my own service record?

No. §8(1)(j) protects personal information from third-party access. You continue to have full access to your own APAR, leave records, pension calculation, disciplinary proceedings etc.

Q5: Are FAA and CIC orders that applied the old §8(1)(j) proviso still good law?

Yes for the conclusion (where they held information exempt as personal); partially for the reasoning (the statutory basis of the balancing needs to be re-cited). Citing those pre-amendment orders post-14-November-2025 should be accompanied by the note that the analytical framework has moved to §8(2).

If you issue PIO replies regularly, do these three checks against every draft involving personal information:

1. Sub-clause citation — replace “§8(1)(j) read with its proviso” with “§8(1)(j) as substituted by §44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 (effective 14 November 2025)”.
2. Public-interest analysis — move it out of §8(1)(j) and into a separate paragraph citing §8(2). Record explicit reasoning.
3. “Not denied to Parliament” line — remove it. It is no longer part of the statutory text.

• Section 8(1)(j) — decision framework — full practitioner guide with drafting templates
• PIO reply under §8(1)(j) after DPDP 2025 — three reply-template blog
• DPDP Rules 2025 — amendment analysis
• Delhi HC post-DPDP guidance (2025)
• Puttaswamy — privacy as fundamental right
• CPD Module 6 — §8(2) & DPDP 2025

• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), §44(3)
• Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (notified 14 November 2025)
• Right to Information Act, 2005 (as amended)
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212
• CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481

Posted: 22 April 2026 · Author: Shrawan Pathak, Editor RTI Wiki