Context:
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, passed in 2005, has been instrumental in enhancing transparency and accountability in governance. Over the years, it has empowered citizens to access crucial government information, often exposing corruption, misgovernance, and misuse of power.
Emerging Threat
- A controversial amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been introduced through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.
- The DPDP Act stems from the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017), which affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Key Changes and Implications
- Current RTI Provision (Section 8(1)(j)):
- Allows withholding of “personal information” if it doesn’t serve public interest or constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
- Contains a safeguard clause, allowing disclosure if public interest outweighs privacy concerns.
- Amendment via DPDP Act:
- Enables withholding of all “personal information” without any provision for public interest exceptions.
- Removes key safeguard that empowered RTI authorities to weigh transparency against privacy.
Concerns Raised
- Vague Definition: “Personal information” is not clearly defined in Section 44(3), leaving room for broad and arbitrary denial of RTI requests.
- Risk of Abuse:
- Could block access to important public records — e.g., educational qualifications, caste certificates — which have been used to expose fraud in public service.
- Undermines public accountability by classifying previously accessible data as private.
- Misuse Argument Rejected:
- Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw defended the move as preventing “misuse” and balancing privacy with transparency.
- However, civil society groups and activists argue the RTI Act already provides this balance and the amendment is redundant and harmful.
Call to Action
- The amendment contradicts the spirit of the RTI Act and the intent of the K.S. Puttaswamy ruling.
- Transparency advocates demand that the government revoke Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act and restore the public interest safeguard in RTI provisions.
- Failure to act could result in a regression in democratic accountability and weaken citizen oversight of public institutions.
TH
