Syllabus: GS2/Governance
Context
- The amendment to the RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection law has sparked concerns over dilution of transparency and citizens’ fundamental right to information.
About Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005
- Aim: It was designed to promote transparency in the functioning of the government by giving citizens the right to access information from public authorities.
- Scope: The Act applies to public authorities, which include government departments, ministries, and organizations that are substantially funded by the government.
- Information Accessible to the Public: Citizens have the right to request information from public authorities. This includes the right to access records, documents, and other information.
- Exclusions: Information that may compromise national security, breach confidentiality, or harm the integrity of ongoing investigations.
- Timeframe for Response: Public authorities are required to respond to information requests within 30 days. In certain cases, this period can be extended to 45 days.
- Penalties: The Act provides for penalties against officials who withhold information without reasonable cause or provide false information.
Amendment Details
- Original Provision: Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act excluded disclosure of personal information except where the disclosure served a larger public interest. This safeguard allowed access to personal data when it was essential for social accountability and transparency, e.g., verifying government schemes or curbing corruption.
- Amendment by DPDP Act, 2023: The amendment removes the public interest override, imposing a blanket prohibition on disclosure of personal information under RTI. Now, personal information cannot be disclosed merely on the basis of larger public interest if it risks privacy.
Government’s Position
- The Union government justifies this amendment on grounds of balancing fundamental rights: the right to privacy (Article 21) affirmed by the Supreme Court (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) and the right to information (Article 19(1)(a)).
- They argue that the RTI Act’s Section 8(2) allows disclosure if public interest outweighs harm to protected interests, maintaining a balance and avoiding conflicts between laws.
- The government claims the amendment removes a redundant, ambiguous provision while preserving transparency and privacy harmoniously.
Criticism and Concerns
- Transparency & Accountability Impact: Critics argue the amendment severely restricts access to vital information necessary for social audits, anti-corruption efforts, and verifying public welfare schemes.
- Discretion to Authorities: The broad definition of personal data under DPDP Act leads to discretionary refusals of RTI requests, potentially undermining democratic oversight.
- Conflict with RTI’s Purpose: The original RTI framework balanced privacy and transparency, allowing disclosure in public interest. The amendment is seen as tipping this balance towards excessive secrecy, limiting citizens’ fundamental right to scrutinize government actions.
| Judicial and Committee Precedents – Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017): Declared privacy a fundamental right under the Constitution. 1. It also laid down the test of reasonable restrictions (legality, legitimate aim, proportionality). 2. It emphasized that privacy is not absolute but must be balanced with other rights, including the public’s right to information. – Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019): The Supreme Court considered RTI requests seeking judges’ assets, appointment correspondence, etc. 1. It held that the office of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice and judges, is a “public authority” under RTI. 2. The Court also found that asset declarations of judges are “information” under RTI and must be disclosed, as withholding them under Section 8(1)(j) would not override larger public interest in accountability. – Group of Experts on Privacy (2012), chaired by Justice A. P. Shah was constituted under the Planning Commission. 1. The report recommended that any legislation on privacy should not dilute or circumscribe the RTI Act. It emphasised that transparency and privacy must be complementary. |
Recommendations
- Define “personal information” or “personal data” narrowly in relation to RTI context; ensure that information pertaining to public servants’ functions, assets, etc., are not automatically exempt.
- Institutional & Procedural Measures:
- Training of Public Information Officers (PIO)s to ensure good understanding of privacy vs. transparency balance.
- Strengthen Information Commissions’ capacity to adjudicate contested claims.
Concluding remarks
- The RTI Act was designed to transfer power from public servants to citizens by recognising their right to information as a pillar of democracy.
- Judicial dilution and the DPDP amendment risk turning it into a “Right to Deny Information.”
- Protecting the original spirit of RTI requires active defence by citizens, media, and policymakers, to ensure that transparency remains central to India’s democratic governance.
Source: TH
Previous article
India Votes in Favour of Palestine’s Statehood at UN
Next article
Sushila Karki Sworn in as Nepal’s First Woman
