Here’s the thing. The original Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had a beautiful balance built in. Personal information could be denied — but if there was a larger public interest, it had to be disclosed. That one override clause is what exposed the assets of officials, fake degrees, and misused schemes.
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 replaced this entire clause with just: “information which relates to personal information.” No public-interest test. No balancing. Gandhi’s fear in the article is exactly this — everything is “personal” if you stretch it. Your name, your age, your file noting. The courts had already tilted this way: the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande judgment (2012) treated almost all personal information as exempt, and Puttaswamy (2017) made privacy a fundamental right without spelling out how it balances against the right to know.
The way out. Repeal or amend Section 44(3) to restore the public-interest override — the single line that lets an information officer weigh “does the public need to know this?” against “is this private?” Without that line, a corrupt official’s asset declaration and an honest citizen’s medical record get the same shield — the law cannot tell the difference.
The matter is now live: the Supreme Court, on 16 February 2026, issued notice on writ petitions challenging Section 44(3) and referred the case to a larger bench, calling it constitutionally sensitive — but refused to stay the provision meanwhile. A clear legislative fix would be faster and cleaner than waiting years for the judicial route.