Minority concerns mount: RTI reveals govt funded Delhi religious meet in December - By Syed Ali Mujtaba*

Counterview: National: Monday, 02 March 2026.
Indian Muslims have expressed deep concern over what they describe as rising hate speech and hostility against their community under the BJP-led government in India.

A recent flashpoint was the event organised by Sanatan Sanstha titled “Sanatan Rashtra Shankhnad Mahotsav” in New Delhi on 13–14 December 2025.
The event reportedly brought together more than 800 organisations with the stated objective of protecting Hindu culture. It was organised to mark the silver jubilee of the organisation and celebrate the 83rd birthday of its founder, Dr. Jayant Athavale. However, critics allege that the platform was used to target the Muslim community, and they question the presence and support of leaders associated with the BJP government.
The Mahotsav saw participation from over 3,000 delegates, largely from Hindu groups. Media reports highlighted controversial speeches in which some speakers allegedly made inflammatory remarks against Muslims.
Union ministers Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, Shripad Naik and Sanjay Seth, along with Delhi Tourism Minister Kapil Mishra, were among the dignitaries present at the event.
Among the speakers was Suresh Chavhanke, editor-in-chief of Sudarshan TV, who reportedly claimed that “25% Muslims presently living in India are infiltrators” from neighbouring countries and suggested that they should be removed through the National Register of Citizens (NRC). He also reportedly called for capping the Muslim population in India.
Ashwini Upadhyay, a BJP leader, suggested that Muslims should be converted to Hinduism and urged Hindus to actively pursue conversion efforts. He reportedly stated that if every Hindu converted one Muslim, a broader objective could be achieved. He also suggested that Hindu business owners encourage their Muslim employees to convert to Hinduism and that a “government fear” should be instilled among Muslims.
Rahul Dewan of the Hindu Fund reportedly called for an “offensive strategy” to establish what he described as a “constitutional Hindu Rashtra,” and made remarks advocating segregation between Hindus and Muslims.
The event has sparked public debate, raising questions about the background of Sanatan Sanstha, the role of the government in supporting such programmes, and the broader implications for communal harmony in the country.
Founded in 1999 in Goa by Dr. Jayant Athavale, Sanatan Sanstha advocates the establishment of a “Hindu Rashtra.” Over the years, the organisation has faced allegations in connection with several bomb blast cases between 2007 and 2009, including incidents in Vashi and Thane in Maharashtra, and in Panvel in Goa. Members linked to the organisation have also been accused in cases related to the killings of rationalists Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, M. M. Kalburgi, and journalist Gauri Lankesh. The organisation has denied wrongdoing in various instances, and it has not been banned.
According to an RTI response, the Union Ministry of Culture sanctioned financial assistance of Rs 63 lakh to Sanatan Sanstha, Sanatan Ashram, Ramnathi Village, Ponda, Goa, for organising the Mahotsav. The Ministry reportedly stated that the grant was provided under the head commemorating the 150th year of the national song “Vande Mataram.” The funding decision has drawn criticism from sections of civil society and media.
Aditya Menon, editor of the web portal The Quint, questioned the government’s decision to fund the event, arguing that the issue was not the amount sanctioned but whether public money should support programmes that allegedly run contrary to constitutional principles. He asked whether the government could fund an event where calls for a “Hindu Rashtra” and alleged “cleansing” of Muslims were made.
On its official website, Sanatan Sanstha stated that the Sanatan Rashtra Shankhnad Mahotsav (2025) aimed to unite pro-Hindu organisations for the establishment of a “Hindu Rashtra.” It said the gathering brought together saints, leaders and devotees to resolve to establish an ideal “Sanatan Rashtra,” protect temples and traditions, and defend Hindu culture from perceived threats.
Critics argue that such developments contribute to a sense of insecurity among Muslims, who they say are already facing challenges such as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demolition drives popularly referred to as “bulldozer actions.”
Observers have also drawn parallels with the December 17–19, 2021 Dharma Sansad held in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, where controversial speeches calling for violence against Muslims were delivered. While arrests were made following public outcry, many accused later secured bail.
The recent Mahotsav in New Delhi has renewed debate about hate speech, government accountability and the safeguarding of constitutional values. Whether legal or institutional action will follow remains uncertain, but the event has once again brought communal tensions and minority rights into sharp public focus.
—
*Journalist based in Chennai

Kerala govt exempts disclosure of Mullaperiyar dam lease deed original records under RTI act, cites security reasons

Onmanorama: Kerala: Monday, 02 March 2026.

Mullaperiyar Dam. Photo: Special Arrangement

The state government has exempted information related to Mullaperiyar dam lease deed from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The General Administration department has invoked relevant sections of the RTI Act to exempt providing information about the original records of Mullaperiyar Dam Lease deed agreements, including sketches, blueprints, photos, etc., accompanying the original contract.
The notification issued by Secretary K Biju cited that giving information on original records would prejudicially affect the security interest of the state.
As per clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence.
A lease indenture for 999 years was made in 1886 between Maharaja of Travancore and Secretary of State for India for Periyar irrigation works. By another agreement in 1970, Tamil Nadu was permitted to generate power also. The Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed during 1887-1895. Its full reservoir level is 152 ft and it provides water through a tunnel to Vaigai basin in Tamil Nadu for irrigation benefits in 68558 ha, according to the document published by the Ministry of Jal Shakti.
In 2024, Union Minister of State for Environment, Forest and Climate change, Kirti Vardhan Singh told the parliament that the Ministry received a proposal on Parivesh portal in May 2024 for grant of Terms of Reference (ToR) for conducting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study for proposed new Mullaperiyar Dam in an area of 39 ha located in Idukki by the Irrigation Design & Research Board (IDRB). In view of inter-state issues raised by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Ministry sought the opinion of Central Water Commission (CWC), Ministry of Jal Shakti. The CWC,  has informed that the Supreme Court constituted an Empowered Committee in 2010 to assess the safety aspects of Mullaperiyar dam.
In the order of the Supreme Court issued in 2019 it was stated that the question as to whether any study could at all be carried out or not can always be considered and the move on the part of the state of Kerala can be questioned in case the respondents make any application to the SC court for any such permission, according to the reply.
The Central Water Commission had responded to an RTI application that the Periyar lake lease agreement is available in a CWC publication titled Legal Instruments on Rivers in India.

RTI: ₹50,000 penalty imposed on four gram panchayat officials for delay in providing information

The Hindu: Kalaburagi: Sunday, 01 March 2026.
State Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh has passed the order after hearing second appeals filed by an applicant who had not received the requested information in time

State Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh
Photo Credit: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT

The Karnataka Information Commission’s Kalaburagi Bench has imposed a total penalty of ₹50,000 on one Gram Panchayat Development Officer and three Gram Panchayat Secretaries for failing to furnish information within the stipulated time under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
State Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh passed the order after hearing second appeals filed by an applicant who had not received the requested information in time. Despite directions issued under Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of the RTI Act, 2005, and a warning of penalty under Section 20(1), the officials failed to comply with the commission’s orders.
Accordingly, a penalty of ₹10,000 each was imposed on Yankanagouda, Secretary of Tadabidi Gram Panchayat in Wadagera taluk; Mallikarjun Nayak, Secretary of Gundagurthi Gram Panchayat; Ismail, Secretary of Saidapur Gram Panchayat in Yadgir taluk; and Shivakumar Doddamani, Panchayat Development Officer of Tadar Gram Panchayat in Harapanahalli taluk of Vijayanagara district.
In addition, Ismail was fined ₹10,000 each in two separate cases, amounting to ₹20,000. The commission also directed Yankanagouda to pay ₹3,000 as compensation to the appellant for the delay in providing information.
The penalties relate to five cases in total. The officials have been directed to remit the penalty amounts and appear before the commission at the next hearing, with a warning issued against further non-compliance.

DGP reaffirms transparency in police recruitment

Nagaland Post: Dimapur: Sunday, 01 March 2026.
Director General of Police (DGP) Nagaland, Rupin Sharma, on Saturday reaffirmed the police department’s commitment to transparency and fairness in the ongoing police recruitment process, stating that the department remained open to scrutiny under Right to Information (RTI) Act and would take strict action if deliberate wrongdoing was established.

Rupin Sharma (NP)

Speaking to media persons on the sidelines of a programme, DGP addressed allegations of evaluation errors and exclusion of qualified candidates, particularly concerning written examination marks.
He clarified that while physical test marks were disclosed to all candidates, concerns have largely centred on the written exam, which comprised multiple-choice questions evaluated manually rather than through Optical Mark Recognition (OMR).
DGP said decision to avoid OMR was taken after discussions at the state leadership level, considering that the minimum educational qualification for certain posts was only Class 6 or Class 8.
“Some candidates may not have been comfortable filling OMR sheets, so we opted for a simpler tick-mark system,” Sharma explained.
He added that instructions clearly stated that double marking or erasing answers would attract zero marks.
However, he said that following reports of impersonation and other concerns, the department undertook a comprehensive re-totalling and rechecking of nearly all answer scripts. “There were some genuine errors, and those have been corrected,” he said.
DGP assured that candidates could apply under RTI to inspect their answer scripts before the interview stage begins.
“If there are genuine mistakes and someone deserves higher marks, we are willing to correct them. We have no problem in showing the answer sheets within the stipulated time,” DGP stated, noting that managing visits from thousands of candidates would pose logistical challenges.
On allegations that certain candidates in the merit list may have scored higher than deserved, Sharma urged complainants to provide specific details.
“If you know any who may have unfairly scored high marks, give us the roll number or name. We will recheck,” he said, adding that general allegations were not helpful.
Explaining the selection process, DGP said only ten times the number of vacancies (district- and tribe-wise) were shortlisted from the physical test to the written examination stage, while only three times the number of vacancies had been called for interviews.
In cases where multiple candidates secured the same cut-off marks at the lower end, DGP said all such candidates were included for the interview stage.
Asked about action against examiners or staff if mistakes were proven, Sharma said specific complaints would be examined thoroughly, and if deliberate wrongdoing was established, definite action would be taken.
On physical test standards, DGP confirmed that the department followed existing recruitment criteria without any changes.
While personally suggesting future reforms could diversify evaluation components for greater fairness, he maintained that uniform standards were applied to all candidates this time. “If the same rules apply to everyone, it is not unfair,” he said.
Regarding the proposed fresh recruitment drive for around 1,200 posts, Sharma confirmed that another round would definitely be conducted this year, with the timeline to be decided after the current cycle concludes.
DGP also highlighted the benefits of the newly introduced online application portal. He said that the department now has comprehensive data on applicants’ educational qualifications and fitness levels, which would aid in reviewing and possibly reformulating future guidelines in consultation with the government and stakeholders.
DGP expressed hope that if the next recruitment process begins by June or July, it could be completed within three and a half months, ensuring a new batch joins by the time the current batch completes training.

Dilution of RTI Act undermining Constitutional guarantees, say legal experts

The Hindu: New Delhi: Sunday, 01 March 2026.
With greater access to court proceedings and the live-streaming of hearings, both the Bench and the Bar must exercise restraint in avoiding sensational remarks that could compromise the integrity of proceedings, experts say at ‘Justice Unplugged: Shaping the Future of Law’ conclave

(L-R) Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court Shadan Farasat,
Gopal Sankaranarayanan and M.S. Sharmila, HoD Centre
for Post Graduate Legal Studies, VIT, at The Hindu Justice
Unplugged 2026 in New Delhi on February 28, 2026.
Photo Credit: R.V. Moorthy

There has been a steady dilution of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which is significantly undermining Constitutional guarantees, legal experts said at the ‘Justice Unplugged: Shaping the Future’ of Law conclave organised by the VIT School of Law, VIT Chennai, in association with The Hindu, in Delhi on Saturday (February 28, 2026).
There has been a steady dilution of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which is significantly undermining Constitutional guarantees, legal experts said at the The Hindu Justice Unpligged 2026 on Saturday.
“Over the last decade, the RTI Act has become largely ineffectual. For all practical purposes, information that implicates Central agencies is rarely forthcoming. In the past 10 years, it has been in a ‘dead phase’. When it was enacted, it was a transformative piece of legislation for democratic accountability,” senior advocate Shadan Farasat said in a panel discussion on ‘Fundamental Rights in the Digital Age: The Constitution’s Response to Emerging Trends’.
Joining Mr. Farasat in the conversation with Aaratrika Bhaumik, Senior Sub-Editor, The Hindu, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and M.S. Sharmila, Professor of Law, VIT School of Law, VIT Chennai, also observed that with greater access to court proceedings and the live-streaming of hearings, both the Bench and the Bar must exercise restraint in avoiding sensational remarks that could compromise the integrity of proceedings. “Traditionally, it is the Bench that is quoted in media reports, not the Bar,” Mr. Sankaranarayanan said. “If comments are made in open court, the media will inevitably report them. Instead of making sensational observations, the Bench can incorporate its views in a formal order.”
Addressing recent concerns expressed by the Supreme Court over abusive and obscene content on digital platforms and the need to regulate such commercial speech, the senior counsel said there was no regulatory vacuum warranting fresh legislation. He pointed out that adequate provisions already exist under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and various criminal law statutes to address obscenity.
“There are sufficient statutory safeguards in place. No new regulations are required to deal with obscenity,” he said, adding that what is considered profane or obscene is inherently subjective.
“There are sufficient statutory safeguards in place. No new regulations are required to deal with obscenity,” he said, adding that what is considered profane or obscene is inherently subjective.
Highlighting the need to strengthen digital literacy, Ms. Sharmila said citizens must be equipped to critically engage with emerging digital power structures. It was equally vital for individuals to be trained in AI systems so that they could engage with them responsibly and adapt to evolving societal needs, she said.

Fiduciary exemption can’t shield routine administrative decisions: Punjab info panel

The Times of India: Chandigarh: Saturday, 28 February 2026.
In a ruling reinforcing transparency in public appointments, the Punjab State Information Commission observed that fiduciary exemptions under the Right to Information Act cannot be casually invoked to shield routine administrative decisions from scrutiny.

The order was passed by chief information commissioner Inderpal Singh while deciding an appeal filed by a Chandigarh resident, who sought information regarding his selection under PCS Register A-2.
The appellant stated that a selection from A-2 register was made on Dec 20, 2024. While other selected candidates joined service in Jan 2025, his appointment orders were allegedly withheld. He sought copies of the recommendation received from Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), the legal advice taken in his case, inspection of the relevant file, and action taken on his representations submitted between Jan 30, 2025 and Feb 3, 2025.
The public information officer denied parts of the information, invoking Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was argued that the details sought, including names, roll numbers, dates of birth, and marks obtained, were held in a fiduciary capacity and no larger public interest was involved. The commission, however, rejected this stand. In its order, the commission examined the scope of "information" and "right to information" under Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act and reiterated that exemptions under Section 8 must be interpreted strictly.
The commission noted that PPSC recruited section officers, Group A, in the Punjab department of finance (treasury and accounts), and the result of the competitive examination was published on its website, including the registration number or roll number, name and father's name of the candidate, date of birth, category, and marks obtained.
It observed that the seniority list issued by general administration, Punjab, also mentioned details such as the name of the employee, father's name, date of birth, date of joining, and date of retirement. Therefore, the request of the respondent to deny information merely on the ground that the noting comprised names, roll numbers, dates of birth, and marks obtained was not tenable, as similar information was already issued in official records.
Keeping this in view, the commission held the respondent's request to withhold information under 2 points (1 and 4 of) the RTI application was not sustainable. The respondent was directed to supply the information and make the relevant record available for inspection, as sought, within 30 days of receipt of the order.
With regard to Point 2, which related to the legal advice taken in the appellant's case, the commission observed that fiduciary relationships are recognised where information is entrusted to a person or entity with an expectation of confidentiality. It explained that such relationships may include those between a doctor and patient, attorney and client, or trustee and beneficiary. It noted that information obtained in such relationships may be disclosed if the competent authority finds that larger public interest outweighs the need for confidentiality. Employer-employee relationships involving confidential company information or personal data are also treated as confidential.
The commission reiterated that fiduciary exemptions are not to be misapplied to shield routine administrative actions from public scrutiny.
It also referred to the judgment of the Delhi high court in State Bank of India v. Mohd. Shahjahan, which held that an employee of a public authority is entitled to know all details concerning himself, including reasons for denial of promotion, unless specifically exempt under Section 8(1)(e) or (j). The high court clarified that fiduciary exemptions are meant to protect information from disclosure to third parties, not from the concerned employee himself.
In light of these observations, the commission held that the respondent's request to withhold information under Point 2 was also not justified. The public information officer was directed to supply the information up to the date of the RTI application within 30 days from receipt of the order.

India’s data protection law is silencing the right to know : Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri

Frontline: New Delhi: Saturday, 28 February 2026.
The DPDP Act tightens privacy rules, limiting RTI disclosures and raising questions about transparency, press freedom, and citizens’ ability to hold power to account.

RTI activists and NGOs protesting against the RTI Amendment
Bill in Thane, Maharashtra, on July 25, 2019.
Photo Credit: VIBHAV BIRWATKAR

Two decades ago, India took a transformative step towards deepening its democratic foundations with the enactment of the Right to Information (RTI) law, a piece of legislation that empowered citizens to question authority, scrutinise decision-making, and demand accountability from those in power. In 2025, as the nation marked 20 years of the landmark sunshine law, the government operationalised the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which made regressive amendments to the RTI Act with the ostensible aim of protecting personal data and upholding people’s right to privacy.
Both the right to information and the right to privacy have been upheld by the Supreme Court to be fundamental rights flowing from the Constitution under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, which guarantee the people the freedom of speech and expression and the right to life with dignity. The RTI Act, passed in 2005, included an explicit provision to balance people’s right to information with the right to privacy through an exemption clause under Section 8(1)(j). Personal information was exempt from disclosure if it had no relationship to any public activity or interest, or if information sought was such that it would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual, unless the information officer was satisfied that there was a larger public interest that justified disclosure. The provision was the most often invoked exemption clause to deny information under the RTI Act.
The data protection law was similarly expected to harmonise both rights in a manner that preserved democratic accountability while protecting personal data from misuse. Instead, it amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to exempt from disclosure all personal information, a move that has severely impaired people’s ability to access information needed to hold the powerful to account.
To effectively participate in a democracy and ensure accountability, citizens require access to personal information that identifies the individuals responsible for the exercise of power and the disbursal of public funds. This includes names of public officials involved in decision-making, information about their functioning, names, and particulars of contractors involved in public works, and names of officers who grant statutory clearances, licences, or environmental approvals.
Correspondence between various authorities and public officials, including the RBI Governor, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and the Finance Ministry, regarding the proposal to introduce the electoral bonds scheme was accessed under the RTI Act. The documents were instrumental in highlighting the objections expressed by the public authorities and officials regarding the proposed scheme and were relied upon by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment striking down the anonymous electoral bonds.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that citizens have a right to know the names of wilful defaulters and details of the Non-Performing Assets of public sector banks. Democracies routinely ensure public disclosure of voters’ lists with names, addresses, and other personal data to enable public scrutiny and prevent electoral fraud. The ECI permits objections raised by people to voter list inclusions. Experience of the use of the RTI Act in India has shown that if people, especially the poor and marginalised, are to have any hope of obtaining the benefits of government schemes and welfare programmes, they must have access to relevant personal information. For instance, the Public Distribution System Control Order recognises the need for putting out the details of ration card holders and records of ration shops in the public domain to enable public scrutiny and monitoring. Beneficiary lists are published, read before Gram Sabhas and opened to objections. Social audits are also a statutory requirement under the National Food Security Act, the VB-G RAM G Act, and other legislations—each premised on the public availability of personal information.
In each of these contexts, the disclosure of personal information is not incidental but integral to ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities.
Though some disclosures of personal information that are explicitly mandated by statute will be protected under the DPDP Act, most transparency frameworks operate through executive guidelines and administrative practice rather than specific legislative prescription. The amendments, therefore, effectively impose a blanket prohibition on sharing personal data, without carving out space for public-interest disclosures that fall outside an explicit statutory mandate. Given the DPDP Act’s expansive definitional scope, onerous compliance obligations, and substantial monetary penalties—upto Rs.250 crore, which can be doubled—public authorities are likely to err heavily towards denial of information even where sharing information serves demonstrable public interest. This threatens a systemic rollback of proactive disclosure and social audit mechanisms that underpin participatory governance.
The amendment made by the data protection law to the RTI Act has also done away with an important proviso to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, which stated that “information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”. This proviso acted as a built-in proportionality test within the RTI Act and served as a powerful democratic equaliser, recognising the need for ensuring accountability of public authorities towards citizens and not just elected representatives.
Threat to press freedom and whistleblowing
The DPDP Act will have a chilling impact on the freedom of the press as it does not provide any exemptions for accessing and processing of personal information by journalists, reporters, and media organisations. While the DPDP Act does not address journalists or their activities directly, under the law, any person or organisation who collects, processes, or publishes personal data will be classified as a data fiduciary and will be subject to various obligations, including providing notice and obtaining consent requirements that are undeniably onerous. Further, the law allows the Union government to call for information from any data fiduciary without adequate safeguards. Such arbitrary powers without adequate checks and balances pose a grave threat to peoples’ right to privacy and could be used to compromise journalistic confidentiality.
Media bodies, including the Editor’s Guild of India, the Press Club of India, and other press clubs, have flagged these dangers in the law, seeking a clear carve-out for personal information processed for journalistic purposes, as is the practice in other data protection regimes, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. However, the government has refused to make any changes to the law.
The DPDP also fails to provide any protection to whistleblowers, who in exposing corruption necessarily process personal data—names, financial transactions, correspondence, details of official conduct. With exposure to the full liability and penalty regime of the DPDP Act, the omission of protection creates a direct and unresolved conflict between the State’s stated commitment to combating corruption and the chilling effect now imposed on those who come forward with evidence of it.
Unchecked executive control
The DPDP Act not only curtails peoples’ right to information and press freedom, but also fails to provide a robust framework for preventing the misuse of personal data, including for financial fraud. Given that the government is the biggest data repository, an effective data protection law must not give wide discretionary powers to the government. The DPDP Act, unfortunately, empowers the executive to draft rules and notifications on a vast range of issues.
The Union government can exempt any government, or even a private sector entity, from the application of provisions of the law by merely issuing a notification. This potentially allows the government to arbitrarily exempt its cronies and government bodies, resulting in immense potential for violations of citizens’ privacy. The creation of a government-controlled Data Protection Board, empowered to impose fines up to Rs 250 crore—causes serious apprehensions of opening the law to potential misuse by the executive to target dissenting voices and political opposition.
Constitutional challenge
Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the DPDP Act. The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, media outlet Reporter’s Collective, and RTI activists have challenged the amendments made to the RTI Act. The petitioners have also flagged the detrimental impact that the DPDP Act will have on press freedoms and the ability of journalists and whistleblowers to expose corruption and wrongdoing.
The bench led by the Chief Justice of India noted that the petitions raise significant constitutional questions and issued notice to the Union government. At its core, the challenge before the court is whether data protection can be used as a shield to insulate the exercise of power from public scrutiny. The verdict will determine not just the fate of the RTI Act, but the architecture of accountability in Indian democracy for years to come.
(Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri are transparency activists associated with the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and Satark Nagrik Sangathan, and have also filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the provisions of the DPDP Act.)

CIC advises PIOs to abide by provisions of RTI Act.

Arunachal Times: Anini: Friday, February 27, 2026.

Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Jarken Gamlin advised public information officers (PIOs) and public authorities to strictly abide by the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to avoid penalties and disciplinary consequences under the statute.

Addressing an awareness session on the Right to Information (RTI) Act here in Dibang Valley district on Wednesday, the CIC emphasised on transparency, accountability, and timely disposal of RTI applications as essential components of good governance.

He also advised information seekers to exercise their rights responsibly and ethically under the RTI framework, cautioning against misuse of the Act. Referring to instances in certain states such as Assam and Gujarat, Gamlin noted that misuse has led to strict measures, including blacklisting of habitual applicants, and urged citizens to use the Act in a constructive and lawful manner.

Earlier, State Information Commissioner Kopey Thalley spoke on important decisions/judgements of the Supreme Court, and highlighted the key provisions and important sections of the RTI Act. He elaborated practical issues encountered in the implementation of the Act and guided the participants on its effective and lawful application, while emphasising proactive disclosure to enhance transparency and reduce unnecessary litigation.

The CIC’s PA Odi Menjo spoke on the procedural framework of the RTI Act, including filing of applications, appeals, statutory timelines, and compliance requirements. He also clarified common doubts raised by the participants.

The session was highly interactive, with active engagement from all participants. Several queries were raised and addressed comprehensively, making the programme informative, practical, and meaningful.

Among the attendees were Dibang Valley ZPC Sadhu Mihu, Dri ZPM Eta Mihu, Anelih Arzoo ZPM Emmi Yalla, ADC Jally Umpo, HoDs, circle officers, PRI members, public information officers, and members of the public. (DIPRO)

RTI Act Applies To Cochin International Airport Ltd : Supreme Court Upholds Kerala High Court Order.

Live Law: Deby Jain: Cochin: Friday, February 27, 2026.

The Supreme Court today upheld the Kerala High Court order which held that the Cochin International Airport (CIAL) is a 'public authority' coming within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for CIAL). It was of the view that the impugned order furthered transparency and did not call for interference. At the same time, the Court waived the cost of Rs.1 lakh imposed on the Managing Director of CIAL by the High Court.

To briefly put facts of the case, in 2019, the State Information Commission held CIAL to be a 'public authority' under the RTI Act and directed it to disclose certain information. The decision was challenged by CIAL before the High Court, contending that Kerala government had no control over the decisions taken by the Board, and the ultimate decision maker as per the Articles of Association was CIAL's Board of Directors.

The Court was told that Kerala government was holding only 32.42% of paid-up share capital of the company and "the dividend more than the investments has been returned". It was also averred that the nomination of appointment of Directors including Managing Director of the Company was subject to the decision of the Board of Directors though Articles of Association.

The respondents, on the other hand, referred to the CIAL website to argue that the company had arranged a 100 Million bridge loan from Federal Bank and the Kerala government stood as a guarantee, as it had nothing to offer as a security. The Housing and Urban Development Corporation of India (HUDCO) also, on the guarantee of the State Government, provided a term loan of 1 billion at the fixed interest rate of 18% for ten years, repayments of which began in 2000 when the project became operational.

In December, 2022, a Single Bench of the High Court upheld the State Information Commission's view and ruled that CIAL was a public authority under the RTI Act. It observed that the aims and object of CIAL, read with provisions of Article 95 and 125 of the Articles of Association, lead to an irresistible conclusion that Kerala Government had a "deep and pervasive control" over the company.

CIAL preferred writ appeals against this decision, but the same were dismissed by a Division Bench in early August. The Division Bench looked into the process by which the predecessor of CIAL, KIAS (Kochi International Airport Society), came into existence and found that KIAS was constituted through a government order by the erstwhile District Collector of Ernakulam.

It also noted that the land acquisition for the airport was done by the government of Kerala in the name of KIAS. The land was thereafter, transferred to CIAL and thus, the Court remarked that the entire asset and land base of CIAL was consolidated at the instance of the government.

Further, considering the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of CIAL as well as the constitution of the Board of Directors (BoD) of the company, the Court opined that the government had control over the affairs and management of CIAL.

Ultimately, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals and directed CIAL to dispose of the RTI applications made to it within the statutory timeline provided under the Act.

Aggrieved by the Division Bench's judgment, CIAL approached the Supreme Court. In August last year, the impugned judgment was stayed by the top Court.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and PB Krishnan, AoR Arsh Khan, Advocates A Karthik, Harikrishnan Sreekumar, Smrithi Suresh and Anila T Thomas (for petitioner); Advocates Patanjal Chapalgaonkar and Aswathi (for respondents)

Case Title: M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED Versus THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 23330-23345/2025

The Data Protection Act Is Critical For Privacy, But Sweeping Provisions Threaten Right To Information, Undermine Governance & Enable A Surveillance Regime : Betwa Sharma

Article 14: Article: Thursday, 26 February 2026.
This month, veteran information activist Venkatesh Nayak challenged provisions of the Data Protection Act, 2023, and the 2025 Rules in the Supreme Court, raising concerns about an amendment that was included without proper debate or explanation, which could cripple the Right to Information Act by creating a blanket exemption in the name of right to privacy. In effect, the government is using the right to privacy, meant to protect citizens’ data, especially from corporations, to shield information that should be disclosed in the public interest and to protect public officials from scrutiny.

This month, Venkatesh Nayak, an information activist for more than two decades, moved the Supreme Court, challenging key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023 and its 2025 Rules, arguing that they mark a “death knell for participatory democracy”, a far-reaching shift away from open governance and toward opacity.
Nayak, director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative India office, who headed the access to information program since 2005, is particularly concerned about section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amended section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, which would have a sweeping and near-blanket exemption for “personal information”.
This would turn the 20 years of jurisprudence on the right to information and turn the transparency framework on its head, prioritising privacy over the public’s right.
The petition says the amendment has effectively stripped away the original three-part safeguard that balanced privacy with transparency in the RTI Act: the tests of public activity, unwarranted invasion of privacy, and the mandatory public interest override to facilitate disclosure.
“It allows the executive to deny information to citizens by citing the personal nature of the information, even for public functionaries entrusted with public duties,” the petition said.
“It is a death knell for participatory democracy, and ruinous to ideas of open governance, which must guide the Indian polity in consonance with the Constitutionally recognised fundamental right of the citizen to know and be informed,” it said.
The petition said “no public consultation or legislative debate was conducted on the impact of the amendment to provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, as the amendment was not separately tabled in Parliament with specific attention on the RTI Act.”
Beyond the RTI amendment, the petition challenges provisions—sections 71 (1) (c), 17(2) and 33 (1) and 36, and rule 23 (2)—that grant sweeping exemptions to state agencies for data collection and processing, warning that they enable disproportionate surveillance without meaningful oversight.
The petition raises concerns about constituting a government-dominated search cum selection committee with quasi-judicial powers under rule 17, as violating the separation of powers, given that the central government and agents are likely to be significant litigators.
At its core, the issue is about balancing two fundamental rights: the right to privacy, which the DPDP Act seeks to protect, and the right to information, which enables citizens to hold power to account.
This conflict is made even more acute in a digital economy where large corporations collect and process vast amounts of personal data.
The challenge is not against strong privacy protections, especially given the scale of corporate extraction of people’s data, but rather the state's increasingly blanket invocation of privacy to deny information, even when it relates to public functions and accountability.
Meanwhile, the government has been gathering more and more data on citizens through official records and surveillance while releasing broad statistics on welfare schemes that make it seem transparent.
But when it comes to key areas like electoral data or information that could hold public officials accountable, getting information has only become more difficult.
In this interview, we talk to Nayak about why he thinks the public’s right to know should come first in matters of public interest, even when privacy is claimed, how little public consultation there is around significant legal changes, and how this legal battle could shape the future of transparency in India.
“On the one hand, what has been happening since 2014 is that the government is increasingly interested in collecting information about citizens, either through legitimate means or through surveillance that is completely opaque,” said Nayak.
“At the same time, they are also curtailing the citizens' right to know what the government is doing,” he said. “They want the citizenry to be increasingly transparent with them, but the state’s obligation to be transparent is diminishing year after year.”
What is the DPDP Act? What is the amendment?
The Digital Personal Protection Act has been in the making for several years now. The first attempt was made by the Department of Personnel and Training and MEITY (ministry of electronics and information technology) under the UPA (Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance) government, due to significant pressure from Western business entities to protect their personal data when they came to India to do business. And then, with the expansion of e-commerce, the collection of data by private agencies increased astronomically year after year. Before the launch of Uber and Ola, we would simply call up a taxi service or hail a three-wheeler from the road. There was no one who would collect data about who you are, from which place to which place you travelled, how many times you used a taxi and where exactly you were at every second when you were travelling.
The old days.
The old days. Now, the complete opposite is happening with these apps. They are collecting a lot of data about us, and we don’t even know about it. Another example is that I’m flipping through websites on Google, and within seconds, I see advertisements for a commodity or service I may have looked at, which then land in my email inbox. If I look for a chocolate cake to send to a friend on their birthday—and this is my personal experience— there will be advertisements for chocolate cake on the news curated for me through Google. This is the private sector surveilling people's surfing habits. A necessity was recognised way back in the UPA government: there had to be a way to protect people’s privacy. However, privacy is a broader concept. The Planning Commission, the predecessor of the Niti Ayog, set up a committee under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah to examine the need to bring a law to protect personal data privacy, including data that is or is not digitised. They said there is a need for a data protection law, which is one dimension of the right to personal privacy.
Privacy can mean many things. Since the 1960s, constitutional jurisprudence on personal privacy has extended to the non-interference by state authorities in one’s personal affairs. The police cannot simply walk into your house on the claim that they want to check whether a law is being violated, nor can they intercept your personal correspondence or dig into your bank transactions. There has to be lawful authority and a proper procedure followed.
What is the major concern?
Leaving aside some of the key provisions that are hugely problematic in the DPDP Act itself, what it does in its current form is to put a blanket ban on citizens' right to access personal information about anyone else. The right to access information about anyone else was not available in an unrestricted manner under the original RTI Act. There is an exception under 8 (1) (j), which states that disclosure of information may be refused if it has no public interest, is not related to any public activity, or may cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy. However, if the public information officer believed that this information was fit for disclosure in the public interest, he had a statutory duty to disclose it. In addition to that, there was a proviso that said information which cannot be denied to Parliament shall not be denied to citizens. Now, all of these safeguards are gone because of the amendments, and the denial of personal information is the default option.
There is a lot of information that can be made public even without people filing RTIs under section 4 (1) (b). One clause states that all information about government subsidy programs and their beneficiaries should be publicly available. Another says, people who are given permits, authorisations, concessions, all of that would be put in the public domain voluntarily, gun licenses, licenses to run, cinema halls, restaurants, or even be concessions in paying income tax, would be put in the public domain voluntarily. Many business people receive concessions. These are important proactive information disclosure elements.
Because of the amendment, a line has been added—information relating to personal information; there is no obligation to disclose any of this information. That is the amended form of the RTI Act through the DPDP Act.
The parity between citizens and elected public officials has also been removed. The earlier test, whether information sought by an RTI applicant can be disclosed to Parliament or the State legislatures, has been removed. The irony is that the people who elected them passed this amendment, telling the very citizens who elected them that they don’t have the right to access the same information they themselves do when it concerns personal information.
In the judges' assets case, Subhash Chandra Agrawal versus the Supreme Court of India (2009), a five-judge constitutional bench said that protection for personal information available to private individuals is not of the same level as that for public servants, MPs, MLAs, and police officers. They cannot claim the same standard of protection under privacy law as private citizens. If a police officer has been authorised to use a jeep for official work, the public has the right to know how the jeep was used, unless another exemption applies, for example, the information could impede an investigation. However, if the police officer used the jeep to pick up his wife and children and go to the market, that is information of public interest because the jeep is not intended for the officer's personal use. How much money have you invested in mutual funds, and how much premium are you or I paying for life insurance cover is personal information that cannot be disclosed, but if you or I decide to contest elections and decide to be a representative of the people, then all that information has to be disclosed on an affidavit because, in 2003, the Supreme Court said, the voter has the right to know all this information.
What is the big worry?
Because there are sweeping powers of the government to deny every personal information—in addition to the amendments being made in the RTI Act section 44(3)—they can exempt entire swathes of information which are already in the public domain and prevent them from being disclosed or they can actually call for information about you or I, and say we needed them for security purposes, and they don’t have any obligation of performing those very basic duties of informing us what information has been called for by us, how long will they use it, how long will they keep it, how will it be stored, how will they ensure no one else can access that information.
These are called the individual's data protection rights, which the DPDP Act establishes a system for, and you have the right to know who has collected what data about you. I can file a request with Amazon for the information they have about me, and they cannot deny it. They are bound to disclose, but the government does not have to. They can say we are using it for security purposes, so we don’t have to give you any clarification.
These are all provisions which we have challenged through this petition because the fundamental right to know has been established over more than four decades of jurisprudence, RTI jurisprudence has been established over the last 20 years, and that is as important a fundamental right as personal data protection.
What are the other problems?
There is also a big uncertainty about how the protections under the DPDP Act will apply to data that is not digitised. This law applies only to data collected in digital form or to data that was previously available in analogue form but has been subsequently digitised. But what the amendment does is take away the citizen’s right to access even non-digitised data by making a blanket exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
The data protection board, which is designed to be government-dominated, performs quasi-judicial functions. However, the government will often be an interested party in the disputes. When a body such as a data protection board performs quasi-judicial functions, there must be some measure of autonomy from the government in selecting its members. That is also something we have challenged. It goes against the principles of ensuring the autonomy for these kinds of bodies that perform quasi-judicial functions.
How did such a major change come about to the RTI without pushback or opposition?
That is another point we have mentioned in our petition. There was no separate consultation on the amendment to the RTI Act. It was simply fitted into the DPDP Bill. That Bill, to the best of my knowledge, did not go before any Parliamentary committee or House select committee. The single point of why there was a need for amending section 8 (1) (j) and removing that proviso was not explained in the note on the clause-by-clause explanation of the Bill. Cabinet notes related to this amendment were denied to various RTI applicants. Nevertheless, there was significant public and visible opposition articulated by civil society actors, NGOs, academics, and journalists. The Opposition tried to raise some of these issues during the debate on the Bill, but the government, in its wisdom, steadfastly refused to undertake any widespread public consultation on why the RTI Act had to be amended in this manner.
The funny part was that when they put the initial draft of the Bill in the public domain, it was so sketchy. It was just a few pages long. The entire scheme of the DPDP Act was not put up for public consultation. When they put the draft rules out for consultation, they included a rider stating that any views or comments from the public on the draft rules would also be treated as confidential. So, what kind of recommendations were made by whom is also not publicly known.
This goes against the methodology of the basis of public consultation in other countries we have entered into free trade agreements now, like the UK, the EU, and the USA. When there is 20 years of jurisprudence available in terms of balancing, transparency, and protecting personal privacy, why is it that an amendment had to be made in such a manner that personal privacy becomes a blanket ban on disclosure? There is simply no explanation.
Give an example of how this would change things?
Until about the Covid period, the media was very happy reporting on the PM Kisan Yojna. There were some local news reports coming out that said there are farmers who are technically ineligible who are getting benefits. After reading those news reports, I filed an RTI seeking the number of instances across the states in which farmers have been found ineligible. I did not ask for names. The PM Kisan dedicated website publishes the names of beneficiaries. Now you need to put out the names of people who have been found ineligible. Not only did they give me data showing that more than 1,300 crores had been distributed to ineligible farmers, and district-wise breakups, but the appellate authority also directed the NIC, which maintained the website for PM Kisan beneficiaries, that the names of ineligible beneficiaries had to be given village-wise. I know of at least one instance in West Bengal where an RTI activist used the information to file complaints with the district agricultural officer, demanding that the names of ineligible beneficiaries should be removed.
Under the DPDP Act, the government has discretion to withhold the names of beneficiaries or their bank account details. They will provide only dashboard data: so many instalments amounting to 1000s of crores of rupees have been disbursed, and there are so many crore farmers. Nothing beyond that.
Give an example that the middle class will care about?
There is this huge issue about reservation quotas and their misuse. A large number of cases that reach the High Courts and even the Supreme Court involve the practice of fudging of caste certificates. In the initial years of RTI jurisprudence, caste certificates were not made public. In recent years, a judgment from Madhya Pradesh requires that this information be made public because there are many instances of misuse, and people who should not have been given the benefit of the reservation quota take it. If you don’t have caste certificates in the public domain, then how can one challenge the appointment of a person who should not have been appointed on a quota basis?
Give another example.
One more thing: one of the High Courts has recently said that, in the context of alimony, husbands and wives in divorce litigation will not be denied information about each other's earlier assets and earnings. Earlier, this information was denied as personal information of the estranged spouse. But in recent years, the jurisprudence has changed due to a need for transparency, as neither party will come forward and be completely truthful. They file RTIs for it. Technically, under the DPDP Act, the authorities will say we don’t have a duty to give this because it is all personal information. Under RTI, they will cite the amended 8(1)(j) and say this is personal information and there is no duty to disclose.
Another example?
There are so many hit-and-run cases that happen. There is a victim who has been struggling to get justice in court, has not had a helpful lawyer and has not been able to get full details of the ownership of the vehicle. Until yesterday, the victim could get the information under RTI. Today, technically, under the DPDP, the government can issue a circular saying private ownership cannot be disclosed.
But isn’t that a police matter? The police will find ownership details.
Today, if you do a word search for RTI Act for Manupatra (legal research website), just High Court judgements, the proportion of judgments where just RTI has been used—civil, criminal, matrimonial, environment, recruitment—to the cases where the RTI itself is a subject matter of dispute is 10 to 1. Every ten cases where the RTI has been used to get information in the context of some other litigation, there is one case where the dispute is whether I should get access under RTI or not. That is the frequency with which RTI has been used in litigation. It has helped courts a great deal in deciding matters that they would otherwise have had to issue directions for production. It reduces the wastage of the court’s time spent on summoning documents required for settling the dispute.
What is the government’s point of view on the amendment? How have they justified it?
They have made the focus of the debate in Parliament on these large corporations that collect large gigabytes of data on individuals, and they say this kind of Act is necessary to give the individual control over the data which such corporations collect. When questioned about the amendment to the RTI Act, even the attorney general has said there is no conflict caused by this amended form. The amendment through the DPDP Act does not curtail the right to know under the RTI Act. That is the bland reasoning that they give. The justification for all this is simply not publicly available.
What is the balance of protecting us from corporations and having access to information?
The balance is established by the DPDP Act, where you have the right recognised to seek information from corporations that collect it. Now, the struggle is that the state, which is run by public functionaries, cannot be allowed to claim the right to privacy for the public functions they perform. Today, there are entire sections of the DPDP Act and entire categories of information about government agencies that are available in digital or digitised form, which can be exempted without any reasoning. The State cannot claim any right to privacy for itself. The right to privacy is available only to natural persons. It is not available to government departments, police, government hospitals, private companies, churches, temples, schools, or colleges.
We are talking about this amendment within the broader context of a growing lack of transparency and efforts to ring that about since 2014. Could you talk about that context?
The larger context is this that while the government has created, not just the central government, even state governments, have created umpteen websites to put out statistical data—dashboard level transparency—but when it comes to information required for holding a public functionary or a government servant accountable for their actions, that information is not made public. Take this very case. What are the reasons behind amending 8 (1) (j) in the current manner? What has been amended is what we know. But why it has been amended has never been explained adequately by the government. They only say that the scope of the RTI Act and the scope of citizens' rights to information have not been curtailed.
Tomorrow, if the government says that information related to beneficiaries of various government schemes is being misused, it will not be made public under the DPDP Act to any third party. I cannot use the RTI Act either to get it. What is happening is that, bit by bit, first within the RTI Act and in its implementation, the government is putting a whole lot of information into black boxes, and now through the DPDP Act, they are trying to expand that sphere of confidentiality in the name of protecting people’s right to know about their own information from these private entities.
It is a downslide as far as the transparency regime is concerned. On the one hand, what has been happening since 2014 is that the government is increasingly interested in collecting information about citizens, either through legitimate means or through surveillance that is completely opaque. At the same time, they are also curtailing the citizens' right to know what the government is doing. They want the citizenry to be increasingly transparent with them, but the state’s obligation to be transparent is diminishing year after year.
It also feels like the government is extracting information about us, but curtailing our access to it.
Now they will also say private entities can withhold information. They talk about data localisation, but they also talk about data fiduciaries subject to certain conditions to take data across borders. From here, they can shift to America, and there is no duty to tell the data principal why, when, how and for how long information about that person is being given away.
But the DPDP Act at least protects us from that.
All of that will become known during implementation. It is still very much in its nascent stages. So, what is happening in the private sector viz z viz citizens’ rights, how many people are filling up consent forms, how many data fiduciaries have set up the kind of mechanisms of protecting data while processing it, very little is known. But what we are increasingly seeing is that, even before the DPDP rules were put in place, in places like Gujarat, PIOs (public information officers) had already begun implementing 8(1)(j) in its amended form.
The RTI was a big win for civil society and the public, but we are now in a completely different digital era, so how do we deal with the challenges of privacy while protecting the vision of the RTI?
The vision of the RTI was to empower citizens to stand on the same footing as public functionaries by creating a regime of transparency that leads to accountability. There is an empowerment element in the DPDP Act also which is called the right to informational self determination but the funny part is that while the RTI was subject to widespread consultation during the formulation stage because it was to empower the citizen, but this latest law which is also supposed to empower not just citizens but any person, but any person whose personal data is processed by a data fiduciary, there was hardly any public consultation of the kind which the RTI Bill generated, and any little consultation they did was also put into locked in hard disks. How can you empower the citizen by saying that the basis for making the law through which they seek empowerment will not be publicly disclosed?
How will RTI and DPDP work together?
The New Zealand ombudsmen body not only decides what information should be given under its own RTI law, but also acts as the grievance redressal authority, as far as data protection issues are also concerned. Here, you have a kind of diarchy in terms of information. For RTI, there are information commissions in each state and one for the central government. For DPDP, you will have a highly centralised and government-dominated dispute resolution mechanism, the data protection board, which will be at the central level. Benches could be set up in different states but under the central umbrella. When it comes to an issue of dispute regarding access to information, whose authority will prevail—is it the information commission’s or that of the data protection board?
Say if I need to know my spouse’s earnings in a divorce case. I will go to the information commission, but now, under the new amendment, they will say we can’t give personal information, and then refer it to the DPDP board?
Not even that bridge is there between the two laws. Here, the information commission will look at the amendment and say “blanket ban, we can’t give you this information”. And you can’t go to the data protection board to get information on your spouse because only your estranged spouse can seek information about themselves.
Scenario number 2: If there is a very progressive information commissioner who says public interest overrides and directs disclosure of personal information. Tomorrow, the person whose information was disclosed can go to the data protection board and say that my consent was not taken. Those bridging provisions between the two laws are missing.
It will be a mess.
Exactly. You cannot have two adjudicating bodies, as it creates a significant conflict.
How could this impact your work?
Every year, I file between 50 and 60 RTIs. Since 2018-2019, much of my time and work have been taken up by the lack of transparency in the electoral field. There is a whole lot of data, beyond who won and who lost, that is not publicly available. And if that information is not publicly available, we will never be able to take the baby steps to put an end to the nefarious influence of money and muscle on electoral outcomes.
Even before the DPDP Act was implemented, the Election Commission was denying access to information. My worry is that the DPDP Act and its amendment will be used to deny even the basic information we would normally receive.
Earlier, I had filed for the 2024 Lok Sabha election in Karnataka, requesting the names of officers appointed to monitor for voter intimidation at the polling station level. I got that information after paying the requisite fee. Now, under the DPDP Act, I will probably not get it, as it contains the names and mobile numbers of these officers. This is just one example. That is when I realised this is too harmful to the RTI regime.
On balance, how do you think the RTI has fared in India? What is the legacy?
It has been successful in creating demand for information in a visible way. But implementation, even during the UPA regime, was not easy. They were the first to propose amendments in the very first year of implementation. Resistance was always there, but resistance was tempered by information commissions. But now, what is happening is that the vacancies are rarely filled until the Supreme Court directs in response to public interest litigations. Then, the kind of people who have been appointed to information commissions, with very few honourable exceptions, most of them are pro confidentiality. Crucial information needed to secure accountability of government officials is increasingly being denied. Somebody’s widow pension has been stopped; they will give that information, but they won’t tell who is responsible for stopping it. Under the DPDP Act, that will become the default position.
But people are still fighting. There are a whole lot of intellectual elites who used to be RTI users, who are now happy writing obituaries to the RTI Act. But at the same time, the number of RTI applications that get filed with the central government, during Covid, went down by about 3% but after that, it has always been rising. It has not decreased. So the interest in the RTI, despite all the sob stories about how we did not get this information, is also part of reality: people are not giving up hope. That is a very positive aspect of how the citizenry at large is looking at the RTI. There has been a 4 to 5% increase in the number of RTI applications filed with the central government in 2023-2024. We are still waiting for data for 2024-2025.
What really needs to be appreciated is the ability of a person from a village or a jhuggi-jhopri cluster to file an RTI application with a BPL card or a 10-rupee fee and to stand before a government officer and demand information within 30 days. That is hugely empowering.
How well has the media covered DPDP? What do you make of the public interest?
When the RTI Bill was tabled in Parliament in 2004, it was discussed across the country, and prior to that, from 1997 onwards, there had been discussion on RTI laws primarily at the state level.Nine states passed the law. The media contributed in a big way by placing issues in the public domain, discussing the provisions threadbare when the central bill was about to be tabled in Parliament and thereafter. Unfortunately, I have not seen that kind of enthusiasm in the context of the DPDP Act. When there is a lack of media interest, how does the public even learn about the Act's implications and the regressive impact of the amendments on RTI?
This is also happening at a time when the central government has severely and adversely affected the ability of many of our organisations to go out and do the public education that we need to. Our funding has been brought to a nil. The FCRA of my own organisation (CHRI) has been taken away. That cancellation was set aside by the Delhi High Court, but the central government reinstated it a second time. The case has still not been decided, and we don’t know if we will even have funds to continue our work from June onwards. How will we go around holding workshops, even Zoom connections, if they require money? So, even civil society’s ability to go out and convey the message of what DPDP is all about has not happened the way we did with RTI. There are occasional meetings, like in Delhi, when the national campaign for people’s rights to information brings in people from different walks of life, including many living in jhuggi-jhopri clusters. These are rare instances where the message of what the DPDP Act is all about and how it negatively affects their right to know is conveyed to the people. The media has not helped much. I don’t think much of the regional press has even taken up spreading awareness about the DPDP Act with the help of explainers.
You have advocated for the right to information for more than 20 years. Is this personally painful for you?
I see it as a challenge. What I see in the future is that 8 out of 10 RTIs of mine that get rejected will now probably become 9 or 9.5 out of 10, and that is extremely concerning.
(Betwa Sharma is managing editor of Article 14.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.