Why in News: The DPDP Act, 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, enabling denial of most information as “personal,” threatening transparency.
Introduction
- RTI Act, 2005: milestone in deepening democracy and empowering citizens.
- Based on principle that govt. is custodian of information on behalf of citizens.
- Recently diluted through Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.
- Risk: RTI turning into Right to Deny Information (RDI).
Original Framework of RTI
- Section 8(1)(j) balanced transparency with privacy.
- Denial allowed only if info unrelated to public activity or caused unwarranted invasion of privacy.
- Proviso: Info not deniable to Parliament/State Legislature cannot be denied to citizens.
- “Privacy” seen as evolving; guided by Puttaswamy judgment.
- Restrictions permissible only under Art. 19(2): decency, morality.
- Govt.-collected routine info (pensions, marksheets, orders) not treated as private.
- Citizens legitimise govt. → govt. accountable to citizens.
Dilution Through DPDP Act
- Section 8(1)(j) reduced to just six words → vague.
- Ambiguity on “personal information.”
- Natural Person view: privacy limited to individuals.
- DPDP definition: includes HUFs, companies, associations, State → virtually all info is “personal.”
- DPDP overrides other laws; heavy penalties (₹250 cr).
- PIOs are incentivised to deny information for fear of punishment.
- Creates chilling effect on disclosure.
Implications
1. Weakening Transparency
- > 90% govt. info can be denied.
- Even basic documents (marksheets, pension records) withheld.
- Reduces trust in governance.
2. Facilitating Corruption
- Details of ghost employees/beneficiaries hidden.
- Orders related to corruption charges classified as “personal.”
- “Easy to be corrupt” environment.
3. Reduced Public Monitoring
- Citizens are best watchdogs.
- Without RTI, reliance on weak vigilance bodies, Lokpal.
- Public accountability mechanism collapses.
4. Futility of Public Interest Clause
- Section 8(2) rarely applied in practice.
- Difficult for PIOs to weigh private harm vs public good.
- Citizens forced to prove “larger public interest” → impractical.
Way Forward
Media & Civil Society Engagement – raise awareness nationwide.
Political Accountability – parties should promise rollback in manifestos.
Public Opinion Building – campaigns, debates, citizen activism.
Legal Safeguards – clarify “personal information” scope; ensure RTI overrides DPDP.
Institutional Protection – reduce penalties for PIOs acting in good faith.
Comparative Learning – study global models balancing data protection & transparency.
Conclusion
The RTI empowered citizens against corruption and arbitrary governance. Its dilution under the DPDP Act risks creating an opaque system where denial becomes the norm. Protecting RTI is not just about information—it is about safeguarding democracy and citizens’ fundamental rights.
UPSC Relevance
- GS Paper II (Governance, Constitution, Transparency & Accountability): RTI Act as a tool of democratic empowerment.
- GS Paper II (Polity): Conflict between Right to Information and Right to Privacy.
Mains Practice Question
Q. Critically examine the impact of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 on the Right to Information Act. Do you think it risks converting RTI into a ‘Right to Deny Information’? (250 words)