By overriding RTI Act, new law triggers transparency concerns

The recent amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, marks a significant shift in India's legal landscape concerning transparency and privacy. This development has triggered widespread concerns among civil society, activists, and legal experts regarding its potential to weaken the robust transparency framework established by the RTI Act.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

India, like many nations, has been grappling with the dual challenge of protecting individual privacy in the digital age while upholding the principles of transparency and accountability in governance. The Right to Information Act, 2005, has been a cornerstone of India's democratic setup, empowering citizens to access information from public authorities. It emerged from a long struggle by civil society organizations, notably the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), advocating for transparency and accountability. The RTI Act operationalizes the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, as recognized by numerous Supreme Court judgments.

However, with the increasing digitization of services and personal data, the need for a comprehensive data protection law became paramount. This led to the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which received Presidential assent on August 11, 2023. While primarily aimed at protecting the personal data of individuals, the DPDP Act included a crucial amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This amendment now exempts 'personal information' from disclosure under the RTI Act if it relates to an individual and is not deemed to be in the public interest. Previously, Section 8(1)(j) allowed for disclosure of personal information if the larger public interest justified it, and the information had no relationship to any public activity or interest, or if it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The new phrasing broadens the scope of exemption by simply stating that information which relates to personal information is exempt, effectively removing the earlier nuanced balancing test and making it harder to obtain such information even if there is a public interest.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

* **The Government:** The Union Government has championed the DPDP Act as a necessary step to safeguard citizens' privacy, aligning India with global data protection standards. It argues that the amendment to RTI is essential to prevent misuse of personal data that might be sought under the guise of public interest. This aligns with the Supreme Court's landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017), which declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21.

* **Citizens and Civil Society Organizations:** These groups are the primary beneficiaries and guardians of the RTI Act. They view the amendment as a significant dilution of their right to know, potentially hindering efforts to expose corruption, malfeasance, and lack of accountability in public offices. They fear that public authorities might use this exemption as a blanket excuse to deny information.

* **Public Authorities:** These entities are responsible for implementing both the RTI Act and the DPDP Act. The amendment grants them significant discretion in determining what constitutes 'personal information' and whether its disclosure is in 'public interest,' which could lead to inconsistent application and potential for arbitrary denials.

**Significance for India and Future Implications:**

This amendment holds profound significance for India's governance and democratic health. The RTI Act has been instrumental in unearthing scams, ensuring transparency in public spending, and holding officials accountable. Diluting its provisions, especially concerning information that might be personal but vital for public scrutiny (e.g., details of officials involved in decision-making, asset declarations, or performance appraisals), could severely impede anti-corruption efforts and reduce governmental transparency. This move could shift the balance between the right to privacy and the right to information, potentially prioritizing individual privacy (or the privacy of public servants) over collective transparency and accountability.

Historically, the RTI Act has been a powerful tool for empowering ordinary citizens, fostering a more informed citizenry, and strengthening the democratic fabric. The current amendment, coming after previous attempts to dilute the Act (such as changes to the tenure and salary of Information Commissioners in 2019), raises concerns about a systematic weakening of transparency mechanisms. The future implications include potential increase in information denial by public authorities, leading to more appeals and litigation. Journalists and investigative bodies, who often rely on RTI for crucial data, may find their work significantly hampered. The interpretation of 'public interest' will become a critical battleground, likely to be decided by courts and information commissions, shaping the future trajectory of transparency in India. The challenge for India will be to strike a delicate balance where privacy is protected without compromising the fundamental right of citizens to hold their government accountable.

**Related Constitutional Articles, Acts, and Policies:**

* **Right to Information Act, 2005:** The original legislation ensuring transparency.

* **Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023:** The new law introducing data protection and amending RTI.

* **Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution:** Guarantees Freedom of Speech and Expression, which is the foundational basis for the Right to Information.

* **Article 21 of the Indian Constitution:** Guarantees Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which the Supreme Court, in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017), interpreted to include the Right to Privacy. This judgment laid the groundwork for a data protection law.

* **Information Technology Act, 2000:** An earlier law dealing with cybercrime and e-commerce, which also touches upon data protection, though less comprehensively than the DPDP Act.