Context: Activists, researchers, journalists, and experts have shown concerns regarding changes made to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. The changes will adversely impact the ability of people to access information.
Relevance of the Topic:Mains: Balancing right to privacy of individuals vs. right to information.
Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023:
- DPDP Act, 2023 was enacted to regulate the collection, storage, and processing of personal data while ensuring to balance:
- The right to privacy of individuals.
- The need for lawful data processing by the government and private entities.
- It received Presidential assent in August 2023, but is yet to be fully implemented as the Rules under the Act are pending notification.
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 and its Impact on the RTI Act, 2005: Key concerns:
- The DPDP Act introduces changes to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, particularly through Section 44(3). The major change affects Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which deals with exemptions for personal information.
Changes made by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act in the RTI Act
Concerns raised by Activists and Experts:
- Impact on Transparency and Public Accountability:
- RTI activists argue that the amendment could be misused to deny critical information about government officials and public servants. E.g., Information like Assets and liabilities of public servants could be withheld using the new clause.
- Under the original RTI Act, information on assets declared by politicians, judges, and bureaucrats was made public. Under the new amendment, such information could now be denied outright.
- Details of government contracts and public expenditure: RTI applications have previously revealed instances of corruption and financial irregularities in government projects. E.g., Commonwealth Games scam (2010), where RTI disclosures exposed corruption in infrastructure projects. If Section 44(3) is enforced strictly, such disclosures could be blocked on grounds of personal information.
- Recruitment, promotions, and qualifications of Public Servants: RTI has helped uncover instances of fraudulent degrees and irregular appointments. The revised provision could be used to deny such information, citing privacy concerns.
Legal and Constitutional Implications:
- RTI vs. Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) upheld the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right. However, the court also emphasised the need to balance privacy with transparency in public affairs. The amendment skews this balance in favour of privacy, restricting crucial disclosures for upholding transparency.
- Contradiction with RTI’s Foundational Principle: Section 8(1) of the RTI Act includes a general clause stating that information which cannot be denied to Parliament, or a State Legislature should not be denied to citizens. The new amendment contradicts this principle by allowing broad exemptions under personal information.
- Impact on Information Commission: Several past rulings by Central and State Information Commissions have been based on the original Section 8(1)(j), balancing privacy and public interest. E.g., In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that public officials’ personal information could be disclosed if it served public interest. Under the new amendment, such discretionary power of the commission could be removed, allowing blanket denials to RTI applications.
Consequences of Amendment
- Reduced transparency in governance.
- Increased difficulty in accessing information about public servants and officials.
- Weakened role of the RTI Act in holding the government accountable.
The Right to Information has been a powerful tool against corruption and abuse of power. If the amendment remains in the same form, many disclosures that previously exposed corruption and wrongdoing may no longer be possible.