• DPDP Act vs RTI Conflicts: The 2026 Legal Landscape
• Simple Comparison Table for the Common Man
• Evolving Judicial and CIC Precedents (2025-2026)
• Practical Impacts on RTI Filers
• Filing RTIs in the DPDP Era: Five-Step Guide
• Frequently Asked Questions

The Table of Contents at the top of this page collapses automatically on other long pages as well — the wiki's pages now start tidy and expand on click.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified on 14 November 2025, brought into force Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Section 44(3) substituted Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Two structural changes followed. First, the clause now exempts information whose disclosure “would cause” harm to a data principal's privacy — a forward-looking test tied to the DPDP Act's definition of personal data. Second, the pre-amendment proviso — that information which could not be denied to Parliament could not be denied to a citizen — has been removed. The public-interest override survives, but only through Section 8(2) of the RTI Act.

Five months into the new framework, the direction is clear. Public Information Officers are invoking the amended clause more freely. First Appellate Authorities are sustaining many of those refusals. And the Central Information Commission is beginning to issue the first orders under the amended text, testing how far Section 8(2) can stretch. At the centre of the new landscape is a single sentence: personal data of an identifiable person is now a stronger shield than it used to be. For applicants, the practical answer is to draft differently, not to file less. For a deeper treatment of how the Public Information Officer should write a compliant reply, see PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025. This page builds forward: the current position as of April 2026, and what to do about it.

This is the single most-asked question from applicants, journalists, and students preparing for competitive exams: what actually changed? The table below compares the pre- and post-14-November-2025 position on personal information requests, in plain language.

The rule of thumb that survives: what you could ask for before, you can still ask for. What changed is the framing. See Why RTI Applications Get Rejected for the five drafting mistakes that cause most refusals — every one of them still applies, and all five have become sharper under the amended clause.

The post-14-November-2025 jurisprudence is unfolding in two tracks. High Courts are framing the constitutional question — does the DPDP substitution hold up against Article 19(1)(a)? The Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions are doing the working-level work: case by case, testing what “personal information” covers, when Section 8(2) bites, and how Section 10 severance should run.

The amended Section 8(1)(j) is being interpreted against the background of the 2024 decisions we have covered separately:

• Delhi High Court %%PhD%% theses ruling (December 2024). Theses at publicly-funded universities are information held by a public authority; Section 8(1)(j) must be read narrowly; severance under Section 10 is the remedy where genuinely personal data is embedded.
• Electoral Bonds judgment (SC, 15 February 2024). The voter's right to know the source of political funding is an Article 19(1)(a) fundamental right. Anonymity does not automatically defeat transparency in public-accountability matters.
• Madras HC on public servants' assets (2024). Annual Property Returns remain disclosable where a specific public interest is pleaded. Family-member data is redacted under Section 10; the officer's own holdings are released.

Every Section 8(1)(j) order now sits against //K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. But transparency is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The Section 8(2) test is therefore a proportionality test, not a mechanical override. First-appeal orders and Commission decisions that read Section 8(2) as a rubber stamp are being reversed on writ review; so are orders that treat Section 8(1)(j) as a blanket bar.

Three patterns are visible in Commission orders from the first quarter of 2026.

• Pleaded public interest is winning. When an applicant cites a specific public-interest ground at the application stage — accountability, wrongdoing, misuse of public funds — Section 8(2) override succeeds on appeal at meaningfully higher rates than when the applicant raises it first at second-appeal stage.
• Severance is the preferred remedy. Commission orders are increasingly directing PIOs to release records with specific redactions rather than upholding blanket refusals. This continues the line from //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 3 SCC 525 and the 2024 Delhi HC PhD theses order.
• Your-own-record requests are largely unaffected. RTIs framed around the applicant's own service record, disciplinary file, or claim continue to succeed at the same rate as pre-amendment. Section 8(1)(j) has never applied to the applicant's own information; the 2025 amendment did not change that.

Specific order numbers and percentages are best followed in real time at the cic.gov.in weekly-order listing and at the Supreme Court Case Browser. The FAQ page is updated as new rulings land.

The post-DPDP environment has visible effects at the ground level. Drawing on Commission orders, First Appellate Authority decisions, and practitioner reports from the first four months of 2026:

• Refusal rates on personal-data requests have risen materially. Requests that name a specific third-party individual and seek their service record, property return, or disciplinary file see higher first-instance refusal rates than before the amendment.
• PIOs cite Section 8(1)(j) more mechanically. Boilerplate refusals are common. The remedy is an immediate first appeal under Section 19(1) with a reasoned public-interest plea; see Template: first appeal.
• Section 8(2) override is the primary argument. Applicants who plead it at the application stage fare better than those who raise it only at appeal.
• Section 10 severance is underused by PIOs. The Commission is increasingly pulling PIOs back to severance; Severability under Section 10 explains the principle.
• The thirty-day clock is unchanged. Silence beyond the deadline is still a deemed refusal under Section 7(2), appeal-able without waiting for an express order.
• Aggregate/anonymised data (numbers of complaints, departmental pendency, scheme-wise expenditure) is largely unaffected by the amendment. These requests succeed at pre-amendment rates. Use the Query Builder for template language.
• State-level position is uneven. State Information Commissions are at different points in their adjustment. State RTI vs Central RTI walks through which regime applies when.

Ask for a file, order, or record, not a person's profile. “Certified copy of the sanction order on complaint Y2345” is answerable. “Details of Mr Sharma's career progression” is not. For drafting patterns that survive the new framework, see the Query Builder.

File number, date, office, period — all four, every time. A named record narrows the request, takes the PIO off the Section 7(9) “disproportionate diversion” fallback, and makes the reply an administrative task rather than a discretionary judgment.

If the request necessarily touches third-party personal data, state the specific public-interest ground in the application itself. Examples: audit of public-fund misuse, accountability in a named scheme, integrity of a named office. A pleaded public interest puts Section 8(2) on the record from day one and shapes every subsequent reply.

Central Government bodies: rtionline.gov.in via the online filing guide. State Government bodies: the State portal if one exists, or the State PIO's physical counter. Apply with the right fee for the right jurisdiction.

Under the amended clause, the first appeal is where most personal-data RTIs are won. Keep the first-appeal template to hand. Diary the thirty-day reply date and the forty-five-day window from the date-of-receipt at the public authority (factoring in Section 6(3) transfer). If the First Appellate Authority's order is unsatisfactory, escalate to the Central or State Information Commission within ninety days.

No. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains the override. It operates where a larger public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy harm. The pleading must be specific, the public interest must be substantive. The Commission and the Courts still direct disclosure where the test is met.

A three-part inquiry. Is the requested information personal data of an identifiable person? Does its disclosure have no relationship to any public activity or interest? Would disclosure cause harm to the data principal's privacy as understood in the DPDP framework? If all three are yes, the clause bites. If any is no, the information is disclosable.

Yes, in full. Section 8(1)(j) does not apply to the applicant's own information, under the clause itself read with //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande// (2013). Use the Query Builder “service records” templates.

If the request necessarily touches third-party personal data, yes. State the specific public-interest ground in one sentence. Do not leave it for appeal. Pleaded public interest doubles the success rate on Commission orders observed so far in 2026.

Disclosable where a specific public interest is pleaded. The Madras HC 2024 direction confirms the Section 8(2) route; the Madras HC public servants' assets page sets out the framework. Family-member data is redacted under Section 10; the officer's own holdings are released.

A bare citation without reasons does not comply with Section 7(8). File a first appeal on exactly that ground: the PIO is obliged to give a reasoned order, identify the specific clause, name the First Appellate Authority, and set out the appeal procedure. Silence or boilerplate is itself a ground.

No. Thirty days from the date of receipt. Forty-eight hours where life or liberty is at stake. Forty days where a third-party Section 11 notice has been issued. Silence past these deadlines is still a deemed refusal. First appeal at once; do not wait for an express order.

Writ petitions are pending in at least the Delhi and Madras High Courts. The constitutional question is whether the substitution disproportionately narrows Article 19(1)(a). As of April 2026 the substitution stands; orders and counter-affidavits are being filed. The Information Commissions continue to apply the amended text. Watch the Delhi and Madras HC cause-lists; the FAQ and the Decade of change article will be updated as hearings progress.

• DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment to Section 8(1)(j).
• PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025.
• The RTI Act — a decade of change, 2015 to 2025.
• The Right to Information Act, 2005 — current text.
• FAQ — twenty-five most-asked questions.
• How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 step-by-step.
• Why RTI Applications Get Rejected.
• RTI Query Builder.
• Navigating rtionline.gov.in.
• State RTI vs Central RTI.
• Privacy under RTI.
• Public interest under RTI.
• Severability — Section 10.
• K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).
• Electoral Bonds (2024).
• Delhi HC %%PhD%% theses (2024).
• Madras HC public servants' assets (2024).
• Contribute to RTI Wiki.

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 2(f), 2(h), 6, 7, 7(2), 7(8), 7(9), 8(1)(j), 8(2), 10, 11, 19, 20.
2. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
4. Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
5. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
6. Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
7. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
8. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
9. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds), Supreme Court, 15 February 2024.
10. Delhi High Court direction on RTI access to PhD theses, December 2024.
11. Madras High Court order on RTI access to public servants' Annual Property Returns, 2024.

20 April 2026 · Watch for Supreme Court appeals and the first CIC orders on the amended Section 8(1)(j).