On February 16, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to send petitions challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act’s Section 44(3) to a Constitution Bench. Petitioners say this section blocks Right to Information (RTI) applicants from accessing 'personal information,' hurting citizens’ right to a transparent government under the RTI Act. Chief Justice Surya Kant, leading a three-judge Bench, called the legal issues “complex, slightly sensitive and really interesting.” He refused to pause this section’s enforcement but issued a notice to the government. Advocate Vrinda Grover, for petitioner Venkatesh Nayak, said the government used a “hammer” to attack citizens’ right to information, not a “chisel.” Section 44(3) changed Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which earlier allowed authorities to refuse information only when it harmed privacy without public interest. Now, the government has wide power to deny information, ignoring the balance between privacy and transparency. Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Rahul Gupta said the original RTI law balanced privacy and information rights well, citing a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that personal information stays private unless public interest demands otherwise. Grover argued that Section 44(3) gives the government “unguided discretion” to block personal info, violating the constitution and the right to free speech under Article 19. The petition said the DPDP law wrongly extends privacy rights to the state and treats public officials the same as ordinary citizens, harming transparency. Bhushan warned the amendment means RTI requests about officials, public funds, or audits can be denied simply as 'personal information.' Petitioners called this change a death blow to open governance and participatory democracy. The Supreme Court will now consider these serious issues before the Constitution Bench.