skip to main |
skip to sidebar
ET Infra: National: Tuesday, 25 November 2025.
The ministry also said the
Kavach system has been installed at 155 railway stations and 2,892 locomotives.
The latest version of the
automatic train protection system, Kavach 4.0, has been installed and
commissioned on 654 km of rail track by September 2025, the Railway Ministry
said in an RTI response.
The ministry also said the
Kavach system has been installed at 155 railway stations and 2,892 locomotives.
Railway ministry officials
said that extensive work is happening in all 18 railway zones across the
country, and very soon, more sections will start being commissioned.
Kavach helps loco pilots
operate trains within specified speed limits by automatically applying brakes
if they fail to do so.
It is an indigenously
designed, developed, and manufactured system whose first field trials on
passenger trains began in February 2016 and was adopted as the national
Automatic Train Protection (ATP) system in July 2020.
Responding to a Right to
Information Act (RTI) query, the Railway Ministry gave details of the specified
routes.
The 324 route km
Kota-Mathura section was commissioned on July 30, 2025, and subsequently the
contiguous 225 route km Kota-Nagda section was commissioned on October 7, 2025.
In rail terms, "route
km" refers to the distance of a transportation route, irrespective of the
number of tracks.
"With this, the
entire Mathura-Nagda (549 route km) section has been provided with Kavach
4.0," the ministry said.
"In addition, Kavach
4.0 has also been commissioned on the Howrah-Bardhaman section of Eastem
Railway covering 105 route km on 12.09.2025," it added.
Chandra Shekhar Gaur, the
RTI applicant, also sought information regarding the number of stations and
locomotives where Kavach has been installed till September 2025.
Kavach is a complex system
having multiple components, such as loco kavach, station kavach, telecom
Towers, RFID tags throughout the track length, among many others.
"As on 31.10.25, a
total of 2,892 numbers of locomotives have been equipped with the Kavach
System," the ministry said.
It added that 77 stations
between Mathura-Kota, 53 between Kota-Nagda in West Central Railways (WCR) and
26 stations between Howrah-Barddhaman in Eastern Railways have been equipped
with station Kavach, totalling 155 stations up to September this year.
The ministry has also
revealed the year-wise expenditure on Kavach since 2020. It spent ₹66.04 crore
in 2020-2021, ₹98.42 crore in 2021-22, ₹156.26 crore in 2022-23, ₹669.76 crore
in 2023-24 and ₹926.37 crore in 2024-25.
In the current financial
year, the total expenditure incurred on Kavach installation up to September
2025 is ₹351.49 crore, which amounts to ₹2,268.34 crore in six and a half
years, the ministry said.
Gaur questioned the slow
pace of Kavach installation. "The Railway Ministry claimed that the entire
rail network of about 1,13,000 km will be brought under Kavach in another six
years but seeing the current rate of installation, it looks impossible."
"There are over
15,000 locomotives and 7,000 railway stations where the equipment needs to be
installed," he added.
Officials said that with
the arrival of new companies, the installation work has accelerated.
"It is a complex
technology. Initially, the Kavach 3.2 was installed on 1,465 km for the trial
process in South Central Railway. Kavach 4.0 version was approved on July 16,
2024, and since then its deployment is going on a war footing," a railway
official said.
He added, "Initially,
only three companies were allowed to install Kavach, but today more than half a
dozen companies are doing it, and more than 15 are in the approval process. So,
the installation work is going to accelerate manyfold in the coming few
months."
Article 14: Ahmedabad: Tuesday, 25 November 2025.
India’s new data
protection rules issued eight years after the Supreme Court declared privacy a
fundamental right create a system that puts State authority first and privacy
later. They allow officials to quietly demand personal data without judicial
oversight, while forcing companies to keep citizens in the dark. They endanger
investigative journalism, curb the right to information, and place
whistleblowers, sources, and democratic accountability at risk.
India’s new data
protection rules place the State above citizens, weaken hard-won transparency
rights and safeguards for journalists and others probing the government and
make investigative journalism almost impossible.
On 14 November 2025, the
government cleared the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules—which
clarify a new data protection law issued in 2023—creating a new digital regime
that hobbles the very rights meant to protect citizens, to the State’s advantage.
Meant to safeguard
personal digital information, the new rules come eight years after the Supreme
Court declared privacy to be a fundamental right. But while they provide
immediate powers to the government, they postpone citizens’ rights by 18
months.
The real substance of
privacy—clear consent, the ability to take back permission, the right to
correct or delete your data, and enforceable timelines for grievances—will not
come into effect until mid-2027.
“[The rules] delay the
implementation of practically all key protections to 2027, while implementing
the dilution of the (right to information) RTI Act immediately; public
information officers are now authorised to decline any personal information
except what is already required to be published by other laws—an all-too-thin
slice of the pie for citizens seeking accountability,” said an editorial in The
Hindu on 17 November 2025.
Experts have pointed out
(here and here) that there is no independence evident in the institutions that
are meant to ensure accountability. A supposedly independent data protection
board, for instance, will function under the union ministry of electronics and
information technology.
In other words, the
government, which solicits business from the world’s big tech companies and
seeks access to their data, will supervise the institution meant to protect
Indians from any violations of privacy.
“For all practical
purposes, [the DPDP rules] do not offer any real remedy… the rules will only be
a nominal checkbox,” Apar Gupta, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation
(IFF), a think tank, had said in January. That is what has happened.
The new law provides the
State with overwhelming power and few corresponding responsibilities, according
to a reading of the rules.
Consider Rule 23.
A Carte Blanche For The
State
Rule 23 allows the union
government to demand any information from digital platforms, such as Google,
Whatsapp, YouTube and Meta, and prohibits them from informing those whose
information the State demands.
The rule does not require
prior judicial authorisation, transparent reporting, or independent review. It
permits authorities to acquire call logs, identity records, or location
metadata without leaving any visible trace.
The proportionality
standard laid down in the landmark 2017 Puttaswamy judgement, which requires
legality, necessity, using the least intrusive option and strong safeguards,
remains unaddressed.
Rule 23 builds a zone of
unaccountable State access within which scrutiny becomes impossible.
The consequences will be
immediate.
Investigative journalists
working on corruption or illegal surveillance have no way to know if the
government has silently requisitioned their metadata.
Metadata refers to data
about data, which can reveal patterns about a person’s life—relationships,
movements, habits—even without accessing the actual content. That includes
emails, call records, photos, documents and browsing history.
Similarly, citizens using
the 20-year-old right-to-information law to ask questions of the government,
document corruption and other malfeasance run the same risk.
Power Imbalances Deepen
Until 2027, when the rules
for users take effect, a person who finds data inaccurate, misused, or retained
beyond necessity has no enforceable right to demand correction or deletion.
The introduction of
consent managers—intermediaries that centralise how individuals give, track, or
withdraw consent—creates further risks, as these gatekeepers could consolidate
control over privacy choices and influence how users navigate consent itself.
Marketed as tools of
empowerment, the consent-manager structure threatens to create new
concentrations of control. If a very few large companies dominate consent
management, they could shape how privacy choices are presented—for instance,
making it easier to agree than to refuse, effectively nudging users toward
decisions that benefit commercial interests rather than their own.
The Rules also place a
heavy onus on Aadhaar or DigiLocker-based verification for children's data and
the data of persons with disabilities.
Such identity-linked
verification extends the exchange of sensitive information between private
platforms and government databases, raises the possibility of exclusion,
creates unnecessary linkages and amplifies the longstanding concerns around
biometric dependence.
India's experience (here,
here and here) with Aadhar-based authentication, centralised biometric
databases, and large-scale identity-linked welfare systems repeatedly
demonstrates that centralised identity systems create vulnerabilities, not
resilience.
The Rules appear to ignore
this lesson.
Crippling Journalism &
Transparency
The most serious
consequence of India’s new digital regime, according to experts and industry
bodies (here, here and here), is the way it deals with journalism and
public-interest transparency.
Once the Rules kick in,
journalists may be unable to protect sources or access information essential
for reporting.
Under most modern
data-protection laws (including the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation), a
“journalistic exemption” protects the press from strict data-processing rules
when reporting in the public interest.
A journalistic exemption
usually allows journalists to: collect, store, and publish personal data
without needing consent; avoid certain obligations, such as giving notice to
the data subject, retain data used for reporting, and protect confidential sources.
Under India’s DPDP rules
journalists—and documentary filmmakers and independent content creators—are
treated like any other data processor or collector. This means they may be
required to seek consent from the very people they are investigating.
Journalists often rely on
confidential documents, whistleblowers, victims, or officials who speak only on
the condition of anonymity. Requiring “permission” in these situations is not
just unrealistic; it fundamentally misunderstands how accountability reporting
works.
It also gives the State an
easy route to question, delay or intimidate journalists through opaque
data-access demands. As the Editors Guild of India warned in a statement on the
DPDP Rules, removing clear safeguards for journalistic work “creates a chilling
environment for reporters and weakens the public’s right to know.”
There is no explicit
protection for handling leaked documents, confidential data, or source-provided
information, and publishing certain personal data—even if crucial to a
public-interest story—could technically violate the law.
Press bodies,
digital-rights groups, RTI campaigners and legal experts submitted detailed
objections to the draft rules, focusing on journalism, source protection and
the weakening of the RTI Act.
The government appears to
have accepted none of these.
‘Indirect Censorship’
“By excluding journalists
from any statutory exemption and granting the State broad access and
enforcement powers, the Rules open the door to indirect censorship, a chilling
effect on free expression, and disproportionate surveillance of legitimate
newsgathering activities,” said a statement issued on 18 November by DIGIPUB
News India Foundation, a body of more than 100 independent digital news media.
A statement from DIGIPUB
News India Foundation, a body of more than 100 independent news organisations
“The absence of any
journalistic exemption, coupled with wide-ranging powers granted to the
government to obtain personal data, poses a direct threat to press freedom and
weakens the institutional safeguards necessary for public-interest reporting,”
the Editors Guild of India said.
“DPDP rules introduce
breach notifications, correction and erasure rights, but govt exemptions,
loopholes, weak oversight threaten user privacy,” said Nikhil Pahwa, founder of
MediaNama, a media website.
Earlier versions of
India’s data-protection proposals—the 2018 Srikrishna Committee draft bill and
the 2019 Personal Data Protection Bill—explicitly included an exemption for
journalistic purposes, similar to the GDPR model.
The DIGIPUB statement said
despite consultations with the electronics and information technology ministry,
it “neither responded to these questions nor addressed any of the concerns
raised by journalists and digital media organisations”.
“This reflects a serious
departure from the democratic consultative process expected in delegated
legislation and demonstrates disregard for press freedom,” said the statement.
The erosion of third-party
transparency—one of the few ways journalists can detect surveillance—makes it
all but impossible to assess whether State power is being misused.
Muzzling Citizens
The DPDP Act and Rules
primarily dilute the RTI Act by amending section 8(1)(j), which had an override
for disclosure in the public interest, so that citizens could expose
corruption, misuse of power, or irregularities in a public authority or
institution.
The removal now empowers
authorities to deny information by merely labeling it “personal data” when the
public interest clearly requires that it be released. The weakening of RTI and
the increased risk for journalistic sources combine to choke the public's
access to the truth.
Anjali Bhardwaj, a veteran
RTI activist, warned that “the amendment imposes a blanket exemption on
personal data… undermines transparency, weakens the public’s ability to hold
authorities accountable, and restricts access to critical government records”.
In July, Justice (retd) A
P Shah, former chief justice of the Delhi High Court and former chairman of the
Law Commission of India, in a letter to the advocate general of India, had
urged the repeal of the changes to section 8(1)(j).
“These changes represent a
seismic shift in India’s transparency framework for the worse, threatening to
dismantle RTI Act’s core purpose of democratic accountability and citizen
empowerment,” wrote Justice Shah.
RTI advocates warned that
the new framework will restrict access to information. Bhardwaj said the
changes “undermine the public’s right to know” by replacing the RTI Act’s
public-interest test with a far narrower standard.
Shah also warned that the
removal of a proviso to section 8(1) of the RTI Act—which mandated that
information not deniable to Parliament or a State Legislature would not be
denied to any person—was “alarming for democracy”.
“These amendments are
manifestly ill-thought-out, raising critical legal issues that are ripe for
constitutional challenge,” wrote Justice Shah.
The DPDP Rules strike
directly at Article 19(1)(a)—the right to free expression, which includes the
right to gather information safely, communicate with sources without fear and
publish freely.
The Rules do indeed have a
grievance procedure, but there is a striking lack of independence in the
regulator, a data protection board.
A Regulator Beholden To
Govt
The Data Protection Board,
which is supposed to act as the main oversight body under the new law, is not
independent, as many experts have pointed out (here, here and here).
The government controls
who is appointed, how long they serve, and can influence their removal. So, the
Board depends on the very authority it is expected to supervise.
Gupta of the IFF said that
the data protection board—it will have a chairperson and three members—“is not
an independent authority for adjudication because it does not have any autonomy
and is appointed, selected, and its tenure and service conditions are
determined by the central government”.
In 2018, the Justice
Srikrishna Committee, set up by the union government to create a draft law, had
recommended that in order to ensure independence, the selection committee
should also include the Chief Justice of India or her nominee.
That never happened.
The Regulation Of
Regulators
When a regulator relies on
the executive for its functioning, it becomes harder for it to question
government departments that hold the most extensive access powers.
Examples of receding
independence of regulators include the Election Commission of India, the
Central Bureau of Investigation, the Central Information Commission, the
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the National Human Rights Commission
of India.
In most of these cases,
government departments—usually the biggest violators—now escape serious
scrutiny. This is the structural risk critics point out with the data
protection board, especially since the government is itself the largest data
collector with the broadest access and exemption powers.
The Rules deepen this
problem by offering very few safeguards around government access to people’s
data. There is no requirement for an independent authority to approve access
requests, no proportionality check, no routine public reporting of how often data
is sought, and no limit on how long secrecy orders may last.
Much of the problems in
the Rules stem from widespread ambiguity, experts have said, apparently a
deliberate feature of a law that does not engage meaningfully with the concept
of privacy and lacks a clear foundation.
The vagueness in the rules
flows from the parent act of 2023, allowing the government many exemptions that
benefit itself.
“Now, the problem with a
vague law is that its enforcement is uncertain,” Gupta of the IFF had said.
“The protection it provides people and the exemptions it provides
businesses—both are up to the government’s discretion without any foundational
principle attached to it.”
(Akhil Yadav is a
millennium fellow and law student at Gujarat National Law University,
Gandhinagar.)
IANS: New Delhi: Monday, 24 November 2025.
A democratic order is the
best form of governance because it promotes transparency, that makes it
possible to fix accountability. Accountability is necessary to run a
corruption-free system that was primarily dependent on right decisions and
transparency helped the scrutiny of the decision-making process.
Execution of a decision
can be marred by inefficiency, neglect or corruption and here also,
transparency of the processes, including adherence to timelines and rules,
could prove to be of great importance. Further, performance at any level
involved effective supervision- the role of supervisors often goes
unscrutinised- and transparency was required to make it possible to examine
this aspect of the organisational functioning too. Anti-corruption bodies
themselves fail to produce deterrence if their performance was not subjected to
scrutiny from outside.
An independent
high-powered watch body outside of the political executive was necessitated
because of the growing perception that there was a political-bureaucratic nexus
as brought out by the Vohra Committee report way back in 1993. The reports of
the numerous Administrative Reforms Commissions(ARCs) on delegation of
decision- making, restricting the number of levels through which a file would
pass for reaching the final decision and creation of inter-disciplinary teams
to address cross-cutting issues in a transparent way, had not been implemented.
It goes to the credit of Modi regime that inter- ministerial coordination had
vastly improved and preceded the placing of any matter before the cabinet
according to a timeline.
There is an inherent
contradiction between confidentiality and transparency and the former has to be
practised within rules that gave it legitimacy. The RTI Act 2005 deals with
this matter and strikes a balance between transparency and confidentiality- for
the sake of the nation, the society and the individual. There is a provision in
the Act saying that notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act or any
of the exemptions permissible in RTI Act, a public authority may allow access
to information if ‘public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the
protected interests’.
The 1967 exemptions from
disclosures granted by OSA stand in the RTI Act as well since they related to
matters pertaining to ‘sovereignty and integrity of India’, security of the
State or friendly relations with other countries. Maintenance of secrecy of
information requires ‘Security Classification’ which in turn defines the
‘Restrictive Security’ or the ‘Need to Know’ parameters for accessing it. It
may be mentioned that a job that called for handling of secret information,
required a certain amount of mental strength and it did not belong to people
who were credulous, who lacked self-discipline or who did not have the ability
to distinguish between an authoritative opinion and gossip. All of this
highlights the strategic significance of transparency in the context of the
governance of a democratic state.
This is the era of proxy
wars and one way of damaging a target country without recourse to an ‘open’
warfare, is to attack its economic strength and assets. Warren Christopher,
Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State famously said in 1993 that ‘ National security
was inseparable from economic security’. Pak ISI chose Mumbai for 26/11 attack
for it is the economic capital of India. It follows, therefore, that any
enterprise that gave economic strength to the country must have a set up of
professionally trained people to safeguard its security and handle what is
termed as ‘insider threat management’.
The latter is what brings
together the functions of Vigilance and Security because a corrupt employee can
fall for the enemy’s designs more easily. Both these functions are now to be
integrated with the mainline management because the source of ‘insider threat’
may be hibernating in any part of the enterprise making it incumbent on
Vigilance and Security to have a thorough knowledge of how the organisation was
run and how were its operations conducted. This validates the principle that
Security and Vigilance must derive their authority from the person at the top.
These functions depend for their success on the ability and outreach of the
handlers who were required to convince the senior supervisors of the mainstream
that the latter had to act as the ‘eyes and ears’ for the former in various
segments of the enterprise.
The work of Vigilance and
Security begins with a look out for members who seemed to be ‘vulnerable’ to
the adversary’s influence. Vulnerability is universally ascribed to ‘notable
addiction’, ‘greed’ and ‘disgruntlement’. Security and vigilance staff trained
in Intelligence trade craft like surveillance and secret enquiries, can check
out on such individuals and also counsel them against their ‘weakness’ in
suitable cases.
The increasing importance
of these functions is reflected in the new areas where the security executives
may be asked to extend their helping hand. Back ground checks, re-verification
of antecedents of those who handled ‘sensitive’ work and even ‘due diligence’
tasks may come to them. They may be required to help in the interviews for
recruitment, formulation of the organisation’s Do’s and Dont’s and building up
of the information security system of the enterprise.
They would give special
attention to this last mentioned work in view of the fact that a subverted
insider was likely to make an unauthorised communication with an entity
outside. Above all, vigilance and security set up should perform the role of a
mentor by organising formal or informal programs to promote the organisational
culture of ethics, loyalty and honesty of purpose that should drive the
execution of tasks assigned to members of the organisation.
Transparency in governance
has emerged as a new challenge facing the people because of the tendency of the
political rulers to hide their shortcomings and their reluctance to punish
corrupt insiders on one hand and the social media campaign of the opposition to
pull down the regime through an ‘influence war’, on the other.
The universal adult
franchise of India is an ideal for democracy but the prevalence of caste, creed
and regional divides in the backdrop of poverty and limited education
encouraged recourse to undemocratic means by all parties, for winning an
election. Indian electorate has proved its democratic credentials and retained
its trust in nationalism and peace even in a situation of personal economic
problems facing them.
India has to specially
rely on its youth and its women power for judging the rulers on merit. The
foreign and domestic policies of the Modi government based on mutually
beneficial bilateral relations without India getting aligned with any world
power, promotion of infrastructure for the benefit of all Indians as well as
encouragement of digital connectivity for economic empowerment of youth, are
the hallmarks of this regime and they have served the democratic state well. A
conscientious judiciary, a strong social media and a constructive opposition
are symbols of a transparent and viable democracy and citizens of India can
derive satisfaction from the fact that they were all in place, in India.
(By D. C. Pathak, The writer is a former Director
Intelligence Bureau)
The Island.lk: Sri Lanka: Monday, 24 November 2025.
The Right to Information
Commission (RTIC), in a public statement issued last week in connection with it
10th anniversary that is approaching, said that despite all its achievements
and high global ranking it is burdened with chronic under-staffing and said
requests for legal staff and other essential cadre has been ignored.
It has also complained
that statutory safeguards regarding funding and recruitment has suffered a
similar fate. The following is the text of the statement issued by Mr. KDS
Ruwan Chandra, the Director General of the RTIC “for and behalf of the RTIC”:
“Sri Lanka is nearing the 19-year anniversary (2026) of enactment of the Right
to Information Act, No 12 of 2016 (RTI Act), globally ranked among the best in
the world which has enabled thousands of Sri Lankans to exercise their right to
obtain information from state and non-state bodies.
“The vigorous use of the
RTI Act by the public with principles of public transparency emphasized by the
Right to Information Commission of Sri Lanka (RTIC) has been affirmed by the
appellate Courts.
“In 2020, UNESCO’s global
report presented to the UN-GA’s High Level Political Forum on Sustainable
Development ( ‘From Promise to Practice…’) singled out Sri Lanka as a ‘best
practice’ model, illustrating the release of information in key cases before the
RTIC. Among others, the World Bank has called upon the Government of Sri Lanka
to ensure the ‘primacy of transparency’ and the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) has acknowledged the measures taken by the RTIC to foster ‘an (embryonic)
culture of transparency among public authorities’ (Governance Diagnostic
Report, September 2023).
“Despite these progressive
developments, the RTIC expresses serious concern regarding the chronic
under-staffing of its Office. The RTI Act divides responsibilities on two
entities, the RTIC with the primary responsibility of hearing appeals and the
nodal agency, namely the Ministry assigned the subject of mass media which must
‘ensure the effective implementation of the Act,’(Section 2).
“Under Section 41, the
nodal agency issues RTI Regulations which must be placed before Parliament for
approval. In contrast, Section 42 states that the Commission’s Rules on Fees
and Appeals Procedure, published in the same gazette (ie; Gazette Extraordinary
No 2004/66), are not legally required to be placed for parliamentary approval.
Two different procedures apply in each instance.
“Under Section 41, the
nodal agency issues RTI Regulations which must be placed before Parliament for
approval. In contrast, Section 42 states that the Commission’s Rules on Fees
and Appeals Procedure, published in the same gazette (ie; Gazette Extraordinary
No 2004/66), are not legally required to be placed for parliamentary approval.
Two different procedures apply in each instance.
“While the RTIC and the
nodal agency must harmoniously work together to maximize the effectiveness of
the Act, the RTIC has a particular duty to maintain its independence from
Public Authorities which are summoned before it as parties to appeals. Specifically,
the independent recruitment of staff and a dedicated Fund (Sections 13 (3) and
16) secures the financial independence of the Commission without which there is
no functional independence.
“It is therefore highly
regrettable that these statutory safeguards have been ignored by successive
Governments. No dedicated Fund has been allowed to be operated. The RTIC has
been functioning with a skeleton staff, one legal officer and two legal assistants
(later increased to three) to handle an increasing case load of appeals.
“Requests for additional
legal staff and other essential cadre including approval to recruit mid-
level positions such as
information technology (IT) assistant have been ignored. In forwarding the
RTIC’s requests for staff to the Ministry of Finance, which the RTIC is
compelled to do through the nodal agency, the process has been inexplicably
delayed, in one instance by eight months.
“Further, the RTIC has
repeatedly informed the Government of the need to allocate a separate line item
in the National Budget in line with its budgetary allocation in 2017 which was
thereafter taken away and the allocations placed under the nodal agency,
undermining the RTIC’s financial and functional independence. This too has been
ignored.
“Additionally, serious
damage has been done to the RTIC’s appeal function by misleading media reports
on 11th November 2025 using a wrong English translation of a response sent in
Sinhala by the Office of the RTIC on 15th October 2025 to the Ministry of Health
and Mass Media regarding a Parliamentary question asked by Opposition MP Hon.
Ajith P.Perera.
The RTIC is unaware as to
the origin of the English translation on which these inaccurate media reports
are commonly based.
“On 15th October 2025 and
in response to a routine parliamentary question asking for appeal statistics,,
the Office of the RTIC under the hand of the Director General responded via the
Ministry of Health and Mass Media that 308 appeals had been ‘adjourned’ out of
1,306 appeals received by the Office of the RTIC during 1st January 2025-30th
September 2025.
“The RTIC has handed down
final decisions and concluded appeals in 1,157 appeals (out of 1,306) up to
30th September 2025. Adjournment for justifiable reasons, including request of
parties, legal complexity of the subject matter etc are part of the normal
hearing process of any tribunal. Reporting ‘adjourned’ appeals as ‘failing to
attend to’ is a serious misrepresentation and a deliberate interference with
the RTIC’s quasi-judicial appeal function.
“Typically, adjourned
appeals are either resolved during the remainder of the year or brought over to
the next year to conclude hearings. For example, by 15th November 2025, the
number of adjourned appeals had decreased to 244. Correspondingly, the number
of appeals received by the Office of the RTIC had increased to 1,538 and
concluded appeals to 1,304 There has been no ‘reduction’ in the number of
appeals being filed.
The RTIC further clarifies
that there has been no reduction of its fund allocation. As reported in the
Hansard of 23rd October 2025 in the answer to the said Parliamentary question,
the budgetary allocations referred to therein are not the budgetary allocations
of the RTIC which are publicly available on https://www.rticommission.lk
/web/images /pdf/Budget/Annual-Budgetary-Allocation- and-Expenses. pdf “The
RTIC exercised a Right of Reply in regard to such misleading news reports on
13th November 2025. However, the said newspapers have failed to publish that
response up to this date violating the code of ethics for newspapers and
necessitating a public Statement to be issued by the RTIC.
“In conclusion, the RTIC
emphasizes that any attempt to amend Sri Lanka’s RTI Act in a manner that
dilutes the nature of the information right will be to the detriment of
citizens, will undermine Article 14A of the Constitution and constitute a grave
setback to progressive gains made so far under the RTI regime.”
Mr KDS RuwanChandra
Director General, RTIC
(for and on behalf of the
RTIC)
Times of India: Mohali: Monday, 24 November 2025.
The Punjab State
Information Commission (PSIC) has decided to issue bailable warrants against
SHO, Balongi police station after he repeatedly failed to appear before the
Commission and did not provide information sought under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act.
PSIC also issued a notice
to Mohali SSP with directions for compliance with orders and provision of
information under RTI. If SHO Balongi fails to appear before the Commission
again, he is likely to face bailable warrants.
The action follows a
complaint filed by RTI applicant Sonu Kumar Kanojia, who approached the
Commission after the SHO failed to supply requested information. Earlier, the
Commission gave both parties an opportunity to present their case in its order
dated July 8, 2025. However, in the latest hearing, the appellant informed the
Commission that no information was provided to date.
Despite notices, no one
appeared on behalf of the respondent for the second consecutive hearing. The
Commission noted that even the last order sent to the SHO was returned
undelivered with postal remarks stating "refused," indicating
deliberate avoidance and disregard for the Commission's directions.
Taking serious note of
this conduct, the Commission observed that such behaviour shows "no regard
for the orders issued by the Commission." It reiterated that the RTI Act
is meant to promote transparency in governance and cannot be ignored by public
authorities.
While granting a final
opportunity, the Commission has directed the PIO/SHO, Balongi Police Station,
to provide complete information to the applicant and appear personally on the
next date of hearing. Failure to do so will lead to the initiation of penal
proceedings under the RTI Act.
A copy of the order has
also been sent to the SSP Mohali, directing him to ensure compliance. The
Commission has warned that the SHO's continued absence, despite repeated
notices, amounts to a serious and deliberate violation. The SSP has been asked
to consider strict disciplinary action against the officer.
The Commission further
clarified that in case of any further defiance, the presence of the PIO
concerned will be secured by issuing bailable warrants and recommending
disciplinary action to the competent authority.
Both parties have been
directed to be present on Feb 17, 2026, at 11:30am, failing which the matter
will be decided ex-parte.
National Herald: Opinion: Sunday, 23 November 2025.
The RTI is not just a
procedural tool or a bureaucratic mechanism. It embodies the idea of
citizenship itself, writes Ajit Ranade
The Right to Information
(RTI) Act came into force in India on 12 October 2005. It is one the strongest
transparency laws in the world. It essentially says that if any information
cannot be denied to a lawmaker, i.e. an MP or MLA, then it cannot be denied to
a citizen of India. It puts citizens on par with the so-called rulers, who are
actually people’s representatives.
The RTI Act gave citizens
a legally enforceable right to ask questions of the State and expect answers.
It empowered citizens to hold government agencies accountable.
The law was the
culmination of nearly two decades of a grassroots movement for accountability.
The movement started with the simple premise that citizens have a right to say:
‘It’s our money, so we want to know how it is spent (hamara paisa, hamara hisaab).'
RTI gives the citizen a right to ask questions and obliges the State to answer
them.
Over the last two decades,
RTI has exposed corruption, improved the delivery of welfare benefits, enabled
public scrutiny of procurement, pensions, ration systems and infrastructure
spending. Even electoral finances. It has empowered ordinary citizens to
challenge opacity in local administration. For many, it became their only
shield against arbitrary exercise of power.
The law really empowered
ordinary citizens. But because it gave them this power, it also extracted a
heavy price. At least a hundred RTI users have been murdered for seeking
information that threatened vested interests.
Today, this hard-won
democratic tool faces its most serious threat yet. There is danger that the
right to information will become the right to deny information. This threat to
the Right to Information comes from the passage of the Digital Personal Data Protection
(DPDP) Act of 2023. Section 44(3) of this new law amends the RTI Act itself,
amending Section 8(1)(j).
The original text of this
section of the RTI Act had a public-interest override clause, permitting
disclosure of personal information if justified in larger public interest. This
override clause was crucial. It recognised that transparency and accountability
are the foundations of democratic governance. The DPDP Act has removed this
override, making privacy a near-absolute shield, unless the government decides
otherwise.
The amendment to the RTI
has turned a careful balancing test into a default veto, allowing public
information officers to refuse disclosure simply by citing privacy.
The DPDP Act also expands
the definition of ‘person’ to include companies, associations and even the
State, meaning that even corporate–government contracts could theoretically be
shielded as personal data. This is not a legal technicality; it changes the
character of the RTI Act itself.
Where information was once
presumed to be open and available, unless denied on particular grounds, now
information will be presumed to be not available unless the State chooses to
make it available. The power has shifted from the citizens to the State.
The original dent in
weakening RTI came not from DPDP legislation but from the judiciary. In Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012), the Supreme Court held that information
about disciplinary proceedings and service records of a public servant constituted
‘personal information’ and therefore could be withheld under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act. The court treated this as a matter between employee and employer,
without acknowledging that the real employer of public servants is the public
itself.
That judgement became a
template for routine denial of information. Once anything involving a person
could be called ‘personal’, even data related to public duties such as leave
records, caste certificates used for official claims, or expenditure from MP or
MLA funds began to be withheld.
The situation worsened
after the Puttaswamy (2017) judgement, where privacy was recognised as a
fundamental right, an important and welcome development in itself. But in the
absence of careful balancing, privacy began to override transparency, even
where public interest was clear and compelling.
There has also been a
steady institutional erosion of the RTI from its early days. Across 29 Central
and state information commissions, more than four lakh appeals are pending,
many for over a year. Several commissions are non-functional, and key posts have
remained vacant for extended periods.
So, even before the latest
changes in the DPDP Act, the delays in key appointments, the fading autonomy of
the information commission and rising pendency had already weakened the RTI a
slow suffocation that discouraged citizens from even filing applications.
We must remember that the
RTI was not born in Parliament; it was born in village meetings, street
protests, hunger strikes, public hearings and citizen mobilisation. The same
kind of mobilisation, the same collective will is needed again, to demand:
1. Restoration of the
public-interest override clause. Privacy does matter, but accountability in
public finances and restraints on corruption and abuse of state power are more
important
2. Reinstatement of the
proviso that information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied
any citizen. This principle sits at the heart of democratic equality
3. All vacancies must be
filled urgently
4. There should be
mandatory and proactive disclosure of information, thereby reducing the RTI
burden and removing excuses for secrecy
5. We must have stronger
protection for RTI users, and The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014, must be
implemented
The RTI is not just a
procedural tool or a bureaucratic mechanism. It embodies the idea of
citizenship itself, and the idea that the State belongs to the people, not the
other way around. If we believe that citizens have the right to govern those
who govern them, then the struggle to defend the RTI, as with the struggle to
create it, must continue with courage, vigilance and collective action.
(Ajit Ranade is a noted
economist. More of his writing may be found here)
Article courtesy: The
Billion Press
Times of India: Mumbai: Sunday, 23 November 2025.
Just 24% or 44 of the 183
orders issued by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) in the
past 12 years have been accepted by the state govt, reveals a recent reply to a
Right to Information (RTI) Act query filed by an advocate.
"The remaining 76% of
the total orders are still pending with the govt, without any action, comments,
reports, proposed action, and are void of any justification for their
non-implementation," said the petition filed by advocate Satyam Surana who
submitted the RTI query after moving the Bombay High Court over alleged poor
implementation of MSHRC orders.
Citing RTI, the PIL stated
high court judgments from different states affirming the recommendations of
human rights commissions involve unpaid amounts totalling around Rs 3.4 crore
since 2013.
An MSHRC official said
there had been internal discussions within the rights commission about
approaching the high court against the state govt for not accepting its
recommendations, as legal provisions allow such action. However, no final
decision has been taken in this regard.
The MSHRC has
investigative and recommendatory powers. It investigates human rights
violations and recommends compensations and disciplinary action or changes in
policy. It take suo motu cognizance of rights violations or after receiving
complaints. After hearing the sides, it passes an order, mainly awarding
compensation, which the concerned govt department must implement. The
commission has the legal option to go to the high court against the state for
implementing its order but it has never used the option, said an MSHRC
official.
"The govt and its
authority needs to act upon such orders, or the body will remain
toothless," said an MHSRC official, which is also made a party to the PIL.
"Now that the PIL has
been filed, the MSHRC will present its position strongly to ensure its orders
are either implemented or legally challenged," said an official.
Most of the
recommendations not accepted by the govt were addressed to Mantralaya officials
primarily departmental secretaries followed by the police.
The commission
independently inquires into custodial death cases to determine compensation for
the deceased's families, along with other types of human rights violations.
One of the alleged victims
of police harassment said, "Most of the time, police officers challenge
MSHRC orders in the high court in their personal capacity to delay or deny
justice. Any challenge should be made through the department, not individually."
The petition cited the
order of the Madras high court in the Abdul Sattar versus the govt principal
secretary case, which concluded that recommendations of the state human rights
commission are binding in nature and cannot be ignored by the executive. It
also cited a Delhi high court order in Kiran Singh versus National Human Rights
Commission and Others case, which held that "failure to act upon such
recommendations, without judicial challenge, would defeat the purpose of the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993". It further cited the MP high court
and Allahabad high court while seeking the Bombay HC's intervention to provide
similar relief.
The MSHRC was established
on March 6, 2001, via a govt resolution under the Protection of Human Rights
Act.
Currently, it comprises a
chairman, Retired High Court Judge A M Badar, and two members Retired HC Judge
Swapna Joshi and retired IPS official Sanjay Kumar.
The Hindu: National: Saturday, 22 November 2025.
The parrot, which is
listed under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), requires special permits, including
individual CITES registration and import certificates, for their trade in the
domestic and international markets
There are no registered
breeders or authorised pet shops to sell African grey parrots (Psittacus
erithacus) one of the most easily procurable animals in the country. While the
bird is extensively available in pet markets, Forest departments in different
States said no breeder has registered with them. The departments had responded
to applications filed by The Hindu under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, to
understand the trade in the exotic species.
The parrot, which is
listed under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), requires special permits, including
individual CITES registration and import certificates, for their trade in the
domestic and international markets.
Extensive capture of the bird for the
international pet trade have led to the populations being decimated in their
home ranges encompassing parts of Central Africa. The species is also listed as
‘Endangered’ by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
What the RTI responses
said
Out of 19 States and Union
Territories to whom the applications were sent asking about the trade in the
species, only Kerala’s Forest department declared it had received 17
applications for the registration of breeders’ licences for the species through
the PARIVESH portal. The State also said registration of pet stores was
delegated to be dealt with by the State Animal Welfare Board. Meanwhile, most
other States gave generic responses about not having access to the data
requested, while some forest divisions also responded individually, stating
that the species was not found in their divisions, misunderstanding the
requests.
“That pet stores are an
animal rights issue, and deal only with the sale of dogs and cats, has become
an outdated point of view,” said a researcher working on the illegal trade in
pets across the country. He said the African grey parrots were now protected
under Schedule IV of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. As per the Living
Animal Species (Reporting and Registration) Rules, 2024, every person having
these species, be it pet shop owners or pet owners, need to register ownership
on the PARIVESH 2.0 portal.
Despite Tamil Nadu
claiming that as per their records, there were no registered breeders, traders,
or pet stores dealing in the commercial trade of African grey parrots, the
Forest department said it was compiling inspection reports and audits of
breeding facilities, pet shops, and sellers of the species.
Breeding licence
To breed CITES Appendix I
species like the African grey parrot, a valid breeding licence is required. To
obtain this licence, an application must be submitted to the Chief Wildlife
Warden under the Breeders of Species Licence Rules, 2023. The applicant must
also have the CITES import permit for the species, a Directorate General of
Foreign Trade (DGFT) import licence number, and a No Objection Certificate
(NOC) from the respective Chief Wildlife Warden for the import before applying
for the breeding licence, a researcher understanding the trade in exotic
wildlife said.
“The information is not
available in this office and the process of collecting, compiling and verifying
the same is likely to take additional time. As such, the reply will be send
[sic] once the process is completed...” the Tamil Nadu Forest department said.
Shekhar Kumar Niraj,
former Chief Wildlife Warden of Tamil Nadu, and currently the South Asia head
of the Wildlife Justice Commission, said it was mandatory for the Forest
department of each State to maintain records of exotic species. “Even prior to
importing, buyers have to receive approval from their respective State’s Chief
Wildlife Wardens, aside from import certificates and CITES approvals,” he said.
“The trade in exotic
species is on the rise, and maintaining registries of these species is
extremely important as they pose a biohazard with the potential for spreading
zoonotic diseases and also for becoming invasive species,” he added.
Trade hubs
Chief Executive Officer at
Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) Jose Louies said Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and
Karnataka have become hubs for the import and trade in exotic species.
“These three South Indian
States have got well-established aviaries, which are breeding these animals and
selling it across the country. If you look at a hub of exotic pet trade in
India, it is the three southern states. Whether it is grey parrots, marmosets,
anacondas, or turtles, there are farms, traders, networks and organised
transportation methods,” said Mr. Louies.
However, he does not lay
the blame for a lack of oversight on these species on the Forest department.
“You cannot expect the Forest department or enforcement agencies to go to house
to house and search for these animals,” he said. People buy animals without
paperwork, and also breed them illegally without breeders’ permits. He says
while the legal framework exists to monitor exotic species, challenges in
implementing laws remain difficult to overcome.
“The problem is not just
the grey parrot. The problem is, what we are going to face is alien and
invasive species, which are going to be very common and will create problems
across the country. The grey parrot is just one particular species, but we can
say that about iguanas, marmosets, snakes, turtles; they all have the ability
to become invasive in our ecosystem,” he added. The only solution to this
problem would be for a mindset in people to stop wanting to own these animals
or a blanket ban on all exotic species.
Free Press Journal: Mumbai: Saturday, 22 November 2025.
According to senior
officials, the new clarification was prompted by increasing frustration among
Opposition MLAs. Several had sought key documents under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act, but officers reportedly delayed releasing them, seeking
guidance from the government before responding.
The state government on
Thursday issued its ninth circular on how officials must extend respect to
elected representatives, reiterating longstanding protocols while adding
clarity on what information can and cannot be shared with MLAs and MPs.
New Guidance on
Information Release
Although eight earlier
circulars have been issued between July 2015 and August 2021, the latest update
introduces one significant change: guidance on the release of information
sought by legislators. The earlier instructions remain largely the same, emphasising
basic courtesies officials must rise from their seats when a legislator enters
the room, listen attentively, and maintain polite conduct during phone
conversations.
Signed by Chief Secretary
Rajesh Kumar, the circular underlines that ensuring respect towards elected
representatives strengthens the administration’s reliability and
accountability. It warns that action will be taken against officers who fail to
follow the norms.
RTI Delays Spark
Complaints
According to senior
officials, the new clarification was prompted by increasing frustration among
Opposition MLAs. Several had sought key documents under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act, but officers reportedly delayed releasing them, seeking
guidance from the government before responding.
To address this, the
circular specifies that information must be provided strictly in accordance
with Sections 2(f) and 2(i) of the RTI Act, which define the nature of
information and how it may be accessed. Any information falling within the RTI
framework must be supplied free of cost.
The circular also makes it
clear that no information outside the RTI Act’s definitions must be shared with
MLAs or MPs, effectively drawing a boundary on what elected representatives can
demand from the administration.
Strict Warning on
Privilege Breaches
Another important addition
concerns breach of privilege matters. Government officers have been instructed
to fully comply with the Legislature’s Committee on Privileges and to act
promptly on motions forwarded by the state legislature. Failure to do so will
invite disciplinary action, and officers must submit the required reports to
the Legislature Secretariat without delay.
The circular further
reminds the administration to invite all elected representatives from a
district to government events, include their names on invitation cards, and
reserve seats for them.
Kashmir Reader: Opinion: Saturday, 22 November 2025.
The Digital Personal Data
Protection Act and Rules establish a citizen-centric framework, empowering
individuals with clear rights and setting a phased, 18-month compliance
timeline for organisations
The Government of India
notified the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025 on 14 November
2025. This marks the full operationalisation of the Digital Personal Data
Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). Together, the Act and the Rules form a clear
and citizen-centred framework for the responsible use of digital personal data.
They place equal weight on individual rights and lawful data processing.
The Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology invited public comments on the draft
Rules before finalising them. Consultations were held in Delhi, Mumbai,
Guwahati, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Bengaluru and Chennai. A wide range of
participants took part in these discussions. Startups, MSMEs, industry bodies,
civil society groups and government departments all offered detailed
suggestions. Citizens also shared their views. In total, 6,915 inputs were
received during the consultation process. These contributions played a key role
in shaping the final Rules.
With the notification of
the Rules, India now has a practical and innovation-friendly system for data
protection. It supports ease of understanding, encourages compliance and
strengthens trust in the country’s growing digital ecosystem.
Understanding the Digital
Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
Parliament enacted the
Digital Personal Data Protection Act on 11 August 2023. The law creates a full
framework for the protection of digital personal data in India. It explains
what organisations must do when they collect or use such data. The Act follows
the SARAL approach. This means it is Simple, Accessible, Rational and
Actionable. The text uses plain language and clear illustrations so that people
and businesses can understand the rules without difficulty.
The law rests on seven
core principles. These include consent and transparency, purpose limitation,
data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation, security safeguards and
accountability. These principles guide every stage of data processing. They
also ensure that personal data is used only for lawful and specific purposes.
A central feature of the
Act is the creation of the Data Protection Board of India. The Board functions
as an independent body that oversees compliance, inquires into breaches and
ensures that corrective measures are taken. It plays a key role in enforcing
the rights granted under the Act and maintaining trust in the system.
The Act places clear
responsibilities on Data Fiduciaries to keep personal data safe and to stay
accountable for its use. It also gives Data Principals the right to know how
their data is handled and the right to seek correction or removal when needed.
Together, the Act and the
Rules create a strong and balanced system. They strengthen privacy, build
public trust and support responsible innovation. They also help India’s digital
economy grow in a secure and globally competitive way.
Overview of the Digital
Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025
The Digital Personal Data
Protection Rules, 2025 give full effect to the DPDP Act, 2023. They build a
clear and practical system to protect personal data in a fast-expanding digital
environment. The Rules focus on the rights of citizens and on responsible data
use by organisations. The Rules aim to curb unauthorized commercial use of
data, reduce digital harms and create a safe space for innovation. They will
also help India maintain a strong and trusted digital economy.
In carrying this
vision forward, the Rules outline several core provisions that follow:
Phased and Practical
Implementation
The Rules introduce an
eighteen-month period for phased compliance. This gives organisations enough
time to adjust their systems and adopt responsible data practices. Every Data
Fiduciary must issue a separate consent notice that is clear and easy to understand.
The notice must explain the specific purpose for which personal data is
collected and used. Consent Managers, who help people manage their permissions,
must be companies based in India.
Clear Protocols for
Personal Data Breach Notification
The Rules set out a simple
and timely process for reporting personal data breaches. When a breach takes
place, the Data Fiduciary must inform all affected individuals without delay.
The message must be in plain language and must explain what happened, the
possible impact and the steps taken to address the issue. It must also include
contact details for help.
Transparency and
Accountability Measures
The Rules require every
Data Fiduciary to display clear contact information for queries related to
personal data. This may be the contact of a designated officer or a Data
Protection Officer. Significant Data Fiduciaries face stronger duties. They
must conduct independent audits and carry out impact assessments. They must
also follow stricter checks while using new or sensitive technologies. In some
cases, they must follow government directions on restricted categories of data,
including local storage where needed.
Strengthening Rights of
Data Principals
The Rules reinforce the
rights already provided under the Act. Individuals can ask to access their
personal data or seek corrections and updates. They may also request the
removal of data in certain situations. They can choose someone else to exercise
these rights on their behalf. Data Fiduciaries must respond to such requests
within ninety days.
Digital-First Data
Protection Board
The Rules establish a
fully digital Data Protection Board of India, which will consist of four
members. Citizens will be able to file complaints online and track their cases
through a dedicated portal and mobile application. This digital system supports
quicker decisions and simplifies grievance redressal. Appeals against the
Board’s decisions will be heard by the Appellate Tribunal, TDSAT.
How the DPDP Rules Empower
Individuals
The DPDP framework places
the individual at the centre of India’s data protection system. It aims to give
every citizen clear control over personal data and confidence that it is being
handled with care. The rules are written in plain language so that people can
understand their rights without difficulty. They also ensure that organisations
act responsibly and remain accountable for how they use personal data.
Rights and
protections for citizens include:
Right to Give or Refuse
Consent
Every person has the
choice to allow or deny the use of their personal data. Consent must be clear,
informed and easy to understand. Individuals may withdraw their consent at any
time.
Right to Know How Data is
Used
Citizens can seek
information on what personal data has been collected, why it has been collected
and how it is being used. Organisations must provide this information in a
simple form.
Right to Access Personal
Data
Individuals can ask for a
copy of their personal data that is held by a Data Fiduciary.
Right to Correct Personal
Data
People may request
corrections to personal data that is inaccurate or incomplete.
Right to Update Personal
Data
Citizens can ask for
changes when their details have altered, such as a new address or updated
contact number.
Right to Erase Personal
Data
Individuals may request
the removal of personal data in certain situations. The Data Fiduciary must
consider and act on this request within the permitted time.
Right to Nominate Another
Person
Every individual can
appoint someone to exercise their data rights on their behalf. This is helpful
in cases of illness or other limitations.
Mandatory Response within
Ninety Days
Data Fiduciaries are
required to address all requests related to access, correction, updating or
erasure within a maximum of ninety days, ensuring timely action and
accountability.
Protection During Personal
Data Breaches
If a breach takes place,
citizens must be informed at the earliest. The message must explain what
happened and what steps they can take. This helps people act quickly to reduce
harm.
Clear Contact for Queries
and Complaints
Data Fiduciaries must
provide a point of contact for questions relating to personal data. This may be
a designated officer or a Data Protection Officer.
Special Protection for
Children
When a child’s personal
data is involved, verifiable consent from a parent or guardian is required.
This consent is needed unless the processing relates to essential services such
as healthcare, education or real-time safety.
Special Protection for
Persons with Disabilities
If a person with a
disability cannot make legal decisions even with support, their lawful guardian
must give consent. This guardian must be verified under the relevant laws.
How DPDP Aligns with the
RTI Act
Since the DPDP Act and the
DPDP Rules expand citizens’ privacy rights, they also clarify how these rights
work alongside the access to information guaranteed by the Right to Information
(RTI) Act.
The changes introduced
through the DPDP Act revise Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in a way that
respects both rights without diminishing either. The amendment reflects the
Supreme Court’s affirmation of privacy as a fundamental right in the Puttaswamy
judgment. It brings the law in line with the reasoning already followed by
courts, which have long applied reasonable restrictions to safeguard personal
information. By codifying this approach, the amendment prevents uncertainty and
avoids any conflict between the transparency regime of the RTI Act and the
privacy safeguards introduced under the DPDP framework.
The revision does not
prevent the disclosure of personal information. It simply requires that such
information be assessed with care and shared only after considering the privacy
interests involved. At the same time, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains fully
operative. This provision allows a public authority to release information when
the public interest in disclosure is strong enough to outweigh any possible
harm. This ensures that the essence of the RTI Act, which is to promote
openness and accountability in public life, continues to guide decision making.
Conclusion
The Digital Personal Data
Protection Act and the DPDP Rules mark an important step in building a
trustworthy and future-ready digital environment for the country. They bring
clarity to how personal data must be handled, strengthen the rights of
individuals and create firm responsibilities for organisations. The framework
is practical in design and backed by wide public consultation, which makes it
both inclusive and responsive to real needs. It supports the growth of India’s
digital economy while ensuring that privacy remains central to its progress.
With these measures now in place, India moves towards a safer, more transparent
and innovation-friendly data ecosystem that serves citizens and strengthens
public confidence in digital governance.
The latest version of the
automatic train protection system, Kavach 4.0, has been installed and
commissioned on 654 km of rail track by September 2025, the Railway Ministry
said in an RTI response.
.JPG)
.JPG)
