Concerns Raised over the Amendment into the RTI Act, 2005

Syllabus: GS2/Governance

Context

• Over 30 civil society organisations are urging the Union government to preserve the Right to Information Act, 2005.

About

• Concern Raised: Organizations urge the government to avoid fully implementing changes to the RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) of 2023.
  • Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act now includes a blanket prohibition on disclosing personal information, even if it serves the public interest.
• Government’s Position: The government defends the change, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Right to Privacy (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case, 2017) as a fundamental right.
• Concerns Raised by Activists: 
  • The change makes it harder to access information vital for social audits and uncovering misuse of public funds or corruption.
  • RTI requests have been critical in verifying government programs and ensuring accountability, e.g., checking food ration distribution.
  • The original RTI Act balanced privacy and transparency; they reject the argument that the changes align with the Supreme Court’s privacy ruling.

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.

Significance of the Act

• Empowers Citizens: By accessing information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability in government.
• Holds Government Accountable: Helps in holding public authorities accountable for their actions, preventing corruption.
  • RTI helped uncover misuse of funds in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS).
• Promotes Good Governance: It strengthens democratic processes by ensuring that the government operates transparently, fostering public trust.
• Enables Social Audits: Activists and NGOs use RTI to perform social audits of government schemes and services.
  • RTI was used to check if food rations were correctly distributed under the Public Distribution System (PDS).
• Access to Public Records: RTI requests have been used to obtain details of government contracts, exposing corruption or inefficiencies.
• Strengthens Democracy: Provides a tool for citizens to actively participate in the decision-making process, enhancing democracy.

Criticism of the Act

• Overburdening Public Authorities: It has led to an overload of information requests, putting a strain on public authorities and diverting attention from their primary duties.
• Misuse of the Act: Some individuals or groups use RTI requests as a tool for harassment or to settle personal or political scores, leading to unnecessary administrative burdens.
• Delay in Processing Requests: Despite the stipulated time frames for response, some public authorities struggle to adhere to these deadlines, causing frustration among information seekers.
• Capacity and Training Issues: Some public authorities lack the necessary infrastructure, manpower, and training to effectively implement the RTI Act.
• Exemptions and Ambiguities: The Act’s provisions regarding exemptions are sometimes vaguely defined, this ambiguity can be exploited to withhold information that should ideally be in the public domain.

Way Ahead

• The RTI Act has played a significant role in promoting transparency, reducing corruption, and empowering citizens to actively participate in the democratic process by holding government institutions accountable. 
• It is a powerful tool for promoting good governance and ensuring that citizens have access to information that affects their lives.
• Parliament must codify clear definitions of what constitutes “personal information” and “public interest”.
• Disclosure of personal information should be allowed if it serves a larger public good, such as exposing corruption, ensuring delivery of entitlements, or verifying misuse of public funds.
• Draft rules and amendments should be done with multi-stakeholder consultation, including RTI activists, data protection experts, and legal scholars.

Source: TH