In News:

The recent amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 has sparked an intense debate on the balance between citizens’ right to information and the right to privacy. Critics argue that the change could transform India’s celebrated transparency law into a “Right to Deny Information”, undermining democratic accountability.

Evolution and Purpose of the RTI Act

• Enacted in 2005, the RTI Act is one of India’s most significant democratic reforms, aimed at promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment. It gives citizens the legal right to access information from public authorities, including government ministries, departments, and publicly funded organizations.
• Under the Act, public authorities are required to respond within 30 days to RTI requests. It also imposes penalties on officials who fail to provide information without valid reasons. Exemptions are limited to cases involving national security, confidential investigations, or information that could endanger individuals’ safety.
• The RTI rests on a foundational democratic principle — information held by the government belongs to the people. The state is merely a custodian of this information, accountable to citizens.

Amendment Through the DPDP Act, 2023

• Earlier, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act permitted the disclosure of personal information if such disclosure served a larger public interest, such as exposing corruption or verifying implementation of welfare schemes.
• The DPDP Act, 2023 amended this clause, removing the public interest override and prohibiting disclosure of personal data altogether, even if it relates to public officials, unless legally mandated. This change effectively creates a blanket exemption for “personal information,” narrowing citizens’ access to critical public records.

Government’s Rationale

The Union government defends the amendment as an attempt to harmonize two fundamental rights —

• The Right to Privacy under Article 21, recognized by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), and
• The Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a).

According to the government, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still allows disclosure if public interest outweighs privacy concerns, maintaining an “appropriate balance.” Officials argue that the amendment merely removes redundancy and ambiguity between the RTI and DPDP frameworks.

Criticisms and Concerns

However, legal experts, activists, and journalists warn that the amendment tilts the balance heavily toward secrecy, undermining the RTI’s original spirit.

• Dilution of Transparency:Without the “public interest” clause, authorities can refuse disclosure of crucial information, limiting citizens’ ability to scrutinize governance, corruption, or misuse of power.
• Broad Definition of ‘Personal Data’:The DPDP Act defines personal data expansively, enabling arbitrary denials of RTI requests, even for information concerning public servants’ official actions, assets, or decisions.
• Threat to Democratic Oversight:The amendment risks converting RTI from a tool of empowerment into a bureaucratic shield, curbing social audits and investigative journalism.
• Conflict with RTI’s Objective:The RTI was intended to shift power from public officials to citizens. Restricting access reverses this power dynamic, eroding democratic participation and accountability.

Judicial and Institutional Perspectives

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017):The Supreme Court upheld privacy as a fundamental right but emphasized it is not absolute and must be balanced with other rights, including transparency and public accountability.
• Supreme Court vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019):The Court ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India is subject to RTI and that judges’ asset declarations must be disclosed, reinforcing the primacy of public interest in promoting accountability.
• Justice A.P. Shah Committee on Privacy (2012):The expert group explicitly recommended that any privacy law should not dilute or override the RTI Act, asserting that transparency and privacy are complementary, not conflicting, principles.

Recommendations for Balance

• Narrow Definition of Personal Information:Limit exemptions only to information that genuinely compromises privacy, while allowing disclosure of public officials’ professional conduct, assets, and decisions.
• Training for Public Information Officers (PIOs):To ensure they interpret privacy clauses correctly and maintain the transparency-privacy balance.
• Strengthening Information Commissions:Empower Central and State Information Commissions with greater capacity and independence to adjudicate privacy-related disputes.
• Periodic Review:Establish a parliamentary oversight committee to review the impact of privacy laws on the RTI regime.