Table of Contents
Privacy and RTI: Filing Smart in the DPDP Era (2026 Guide)
Did you know? A well-drafted “aggregate” RTI wins almost every time, even after the 14 November 2025 amendment. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 did not touch Section 8(2), the public-interest override. That clause is still your lifeline.
In one line. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified on 14 November 2025, substituted the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. A steep share of Q1 2026 RTIs have been refused on the strength of that substitution. This guide shows how to draft an application the Public Information Officer cannot refuse by reflex.
What that means in practice.
- Names trigger rejections. Naming an officer or a citizen in the question is the fastest route to a Section 8(1)(j) refusal.
- Aggregates and functions win. Ask about the department's spending, the scheme's cost, the tender's award criteria, not about who drew what.
- Section 8(2) is intact. The public-interest override survives the amendment and must be read into every refusal.
Updated: 20 April 2026. Rejection rates reported above 40 per cent in the first quarter of 2026.
Why so many RTIs are failing in 2026
Filed an RTI last week asking for an officer's travel expenses? It probably came back refused, with the Public Information Officer citing the new text of Section 8(1)(j) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. You are not alone. The first quarter of 2026 has seen rejection rates reported at over 40 per cent, and practitioner notes out of the Central Information Commission describe a pattern of mechanical Section 44(3) citations on any request that mentions a named individual.
Pendency is the other half of the story. The Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions together carry a backlog reported above 4 lakh second appeals, and the three-year commissioner tenure under the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 means a constant churn on benches. You cannot afford to waste a filing slot on a request the PIO can refuse in one line.
The good news is that the amendment did not rewrite the whole statute. The right under Section 3 is undisturbed. Section 4 proactive disclosure has not been touched. Section 8(2), the public-interest override, was not amended. What changed is the shape of the personal-information exemption. Your drafting has to catch up with that shape.
Names equal an instant refusal in 2026. If your application names a person, the PIO has a shortcut to “No” under the amended Section 8(1)(j). Ask about roles, totals, and public functions instead.
DPDP versus RTI: a quick reference table
Use this table the next time you draft a question. The right-hand column is the version that gets through.
| Your question | Old framing (pre-2025) | Smart framing (2026) | Likely outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who spent what on official travel? | “Travel expenses of Sh. Sharma, Joint Secretary” | “Total travel expenditure by the Department of X in FY 2025-26, by designation grade” | Disclosed |
| Who called whom? | “Call detail records of officer Y” | “Total outgoing official calls from the Department's official telephone accounts, monthly, FY 2025-26” | Disclosed |
| Whose foreign trips? | “Foreign trip expenses of Shri Z” | “Total public expenditure on the Minister's official foreign visits in FY 2025-26, with destinations and duration” | Disclosed |
| Who got a tender? | “Copy of all communications with ABC Pvt Ltd” | “Tender evaluation sheet and award criteria for Tender No. XYZ/2026 under Section 4(1)(b)(xvii)” | Disclosed |
| Whose leave record? | “Attendance record of officer P” | “Total leave days availed across the Department by designation grade, FY 2025-26” | Disclosed |
| Which officer did what? | “File noting on officer Q's conduct” | “Action-taken report on complaints filed against officials in FY 2025-26, by designation grade and outcome” | Disclosed |
The pattern is consistent. Move the question away from the person and toward the public function. Ask the department what it spent, decided, or recorded as a body. The PIO can still refuse on some other ground, but you have closed the Section 8(1)(j) shortcut.
Five winning RTI strategies for 2026
1. Never name a person
The moment you name an officer or a citizen in the question, the PIO can reach for the amended Section 8(1)(j) and refuse. A refusal under this exemption does not even need a public-interest test to get past the threshold any more. What you can do is ask about a role or a grade, not a person. “Expenditure by the Head of the Department on official travel” is a role. “Expenditure by Sh. A.B. Sharma” is a person. Same information at the department level, one is answerable and the other is not.
2. Ask in aggregates
“Total tender value awarded by the Department in FY 2025-26” beats “tenders awarded to ABC Pvt Ltd” every time. The department is the public authority. Its collective actions are public records. An aggregate is not personal information at all. The Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay held that information held by a public authority is presumptively disclosable. An aggregate is the cleanest form of that presumption.
3. Anchor to a public function
Ministers, civil servants, judges, and regulators perform public functions. Information held about them in that capacity is not personal information in the sense Section 8(1)(j) protects. The Delhi High Court in the 2024 PhD-theses direction and the Madras High Court in the 2024 Annual Property Returns ruling both underline that public functions carry a lower privacy shield. Frame your question around the function the person performs, not the individual.
4. Cite specific harm and public interest
Section 8(2) is not a decorative clause. It is the override that tips the balance when disclosure would prevent corruption, irregularity, or misuse of public resources. Say why the information matters. “To verify compliance with the Central Government guidelines on foreign travel by senior officials” is a specific harm statement. “For my personal information” is not. The public-interest page has a drafting checklist for this.
5. Rely on Section 4 suo-moto disclosure
A great deal of the information RTI applicants chase is already mandatory under Section 4(1)(b). Budgets, organisational charts, duties of officers, tender processes, contract values, scheme beneficiaries, decision-making procedures. If you can frame your request as “Provide the Section 4(1)(b) disclosure that should already be on the website but is not”, you put the PIO on the back foot. The duty is statutory, not discretionary.
Aggregate data always works. “Total expenditure on the Prime Minister's foreign visits in FY 2025-26” is disclosable. “Prime Minister's UK trip hotel bill” reads as personal detail and gets refused.
The real PIO replies you are getting in 2026
The practitioner note on PIO replies after the DPDP Rules documents the five-sentence Section 8(1)(j) refusal template that has become common. A typical 2026 refusal runs along these lines.
The information sought pertains to personal information as defined under the amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 read with Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The disclosure has no nexus to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, the request is denied.
This is a template. It is short because the PIO is applying a flowchart, not conducting a balancing exercise. Your job in the first appeal is to force the flowchart open. Three lines of reply that must be written into your appeal:
- “The information sought is not a named individual's personal data but an aggregate of the public authority's functions.” (This denies the Section 8(1)(j) premise.)
- “Even if the information is held to engage Section 8(1)(j), Section 8(2) of the Act is an independent override. The Public Information Officer has not considered it. The refusal is bad in law.”
- “The Supreme Court in the K.S. Puttaswamy case held that privacy is to be balanced against public interest through a proportionality test, not refused by flowchart.”
A first-appeal drafted along these lines gets a substantive reply in a majority of cases, from the pattern being reported by practitioners on CIC and State Information Commission orders through Q1 2026.
The CIC is upholding a large share of first-appeal reversals where applicants expressly engage Section 8(2). PIOs who refuse by reflex, without a public-interest analysis, are losing on appeal.
Step-by-step: filing an RTI that works in 2026
1. Pick the right portal
For Central Government departments, use rtionline.gov.in. The walk-through of the portal covers every field, step by step. For State Government departments, check the State-versus-Central guide and the State rules page for your State.
2. Write a neutral subject line
“Information under the RTI Act, 2005 on the implementation of Scheme X in FY 2025-26.” Do not write “inquiry into Sharma's role” or anything that names a person. The subject line is scanned first.
3. Frame each sub-question around a function
Break your request into numbered sub-questions, each asking for a document or aggregate. One question per paragraph. Ask for records, not opinions or reasons. “Provide the total expenditure on …”, “Provide the tender evaluation sheet for …”, “Provide the departmental order dated …”.
4. Add a public-interest statement
One short paragraph, near the top of the application. “This information is sought in the public interest, to verify compliance with the Central Government guidelines on foreign travel by senior officials and to prevent misuse of public funds. Section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is expressly invoked.” This sentence is your appellate hook.
5. Pay the Rs 10 fee
Online filing charges Rs 10 per application on the Central portal. BPL applicants are exempt on furnishing a certificate. Some State portals still accept Indian Postal Orders. See the Why RTI Applications Get Rejected page for fee pitfalls.
6. File with the right PIO
Filing at the CPIO's office of the concerned Ministry or department cuts the “transferred under Section 6(3)” loop. A misrouted application gets forwarded, and you lose two or three of your 30 days. Check the department's Section 4 disclosure page for the CPIO's designation and address before filing.
7. Appeal if refused
Within 30 days of the refusal, file a first appeal to the First Appellate Authority. The FAA guide and the first-appeal template give you the structure. Cite Section 8(2), name the public interest, and point out the PIO's failure to conduct a balancing test.
File at the CPIO level, not the department level. The CPIO's designation is published in the Section 4 disclosure. Filing at the right desk skips the Section 6(3) transfer delay and a share of the rejections that flow from it.
A visual: will your RTI survive DPDP?
The question is not whether the Act has changed. The question is whether your draft has.
The Section 8(2) override: what the bench books are saying
Section 8(2) reads: “Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”
The notwithstanding language is decisive. Section 8(2) overrides Section 8(1) including the amended Section 8(1)(j). A PIO who refuses under Section 8(1)(j) without first conducting the public-interest balancing is not applying the Act. This is not a practitioner's argument. It is the statutory structure.
The DPDP versus RTI: the 2026 position analysis and the DPDP Rules 2025 amendment note walk through the chain of authority. The Puttaswamy framework requires that every privacy-based refusal pass a three-part proportionality test: legality, legitimate aim, and least restrictive alternative. “Refuse by flowchart” fails at the third prong.
Frequently asked questions
| Question | Short answer |
|---|---|
| Can I still ask for the personal information of a named officer? | Usually no, unless the information relates to the public function the officer performs and the public interest is specifically argued under Section 8(2). |
| What wins a first appeal? | An aggregate re-framing of the question, an explicit Section 8(2) invocation, and a reference to the PIO's failure to conduct a balancing test. |
| Do I need a lawyer for the first appeal? | No. The first appeal is a departmental proceeding. The FAA guide and template are enough. |
| What about the second appeal to the CIC? | File within 90 days of the first-appeal order or 180 days if there is no reply. The Landmark rulings, 2021-2026 page lists the recent CIC and High Court precedents that help. |
| Has the 30-day reply rule changed? | No. Section 7(1) is intact. A PIO still has 30 days to reply, and 48 hours for life-and-liberty requests. |
| Is Section 8(1)(j) a blanket block on personal information? | No. It is a conditional exemption, overridden by Section 8(2). The PIO must balance, not block by reflex. |
| Should I quote the DPDP Act in my application? | Yes. Pre-empt the refusal template by writing: “Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 does not override Section 8(2) of the RTI Act.” |
| Does the three-year commissioner tenure affect my appeal? | Indirectly. See the tenure and salaries note for why benches shift mid-case. Keep your paperwork tight. |
Call to action
- Draft smart, file faster. Use the RTI Query Builder to frame your question before you file.
- Share a win. Tag a well-framed application or a favourable CIC order and we will feature it on the case-law library.
- Read first, file second. The site FAQ and the rejection-reasons primer cover the most common mistakes.
Related pages on this site
Sources
- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8(1)(j), 8(2), 19, 20.
- The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019).
- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
- The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
- Delhi High Court direction on RTI access to PhD theses, December 2024.
- Madras High Court order on RTI access to public servants' Annual Property Returns, 2024.
- Central Information Commission pendency and rejection data, Q1 2026 (as reported).
- Central Government portal: rtionline.gov.in.
Last reviewed on
20 April 2026. Rejection and pendency figures are reported estimates; confirm against the Central Information Commission's annual and quarterly reports.
Discussion