Media Nama: National: Thursday, 6th March 2025.
Indian National Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge accused the Central Government of weakening the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by implementing the Data Protection Law.
Taking to X, Kharge listed
several instances where the availability of information in the public domain is
a must. This comprises ration card lists, beneficiary labourers of the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and names of
“scamster billionaires” who flee the country after acquiring loans from
government banks, among other public sector information. He further argued that
while addressing the right to privacy in RTI, the government must not conceal
the list of beneficiaries or the names of fraudsters from the public. He
concluded by mentioning Congress’ continued efforts to safeguard RTI and a
promise to fight against the “dictatorial government to protect the rights of
the people”.
How does the DPDPA dilute the RTI Act?
To explain, India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, specifically Section 44(3) amends a section of the RTI Act to read as “information which relates to personal information”. This affects Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which lists exemptions from the disclosure of information under the Act, particularly subsection (j) which comprises personal information whose disclosure has no relationship with any public activity or interest, or could cause “unwarranted invasion” of an individual’s privacy. However, this provision can be overridden by the Central/State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority if “larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”.
As explained previously, through the amendment, the government can decline any information relating to a person requested via RTI. Besides this, the government also removed a clause from the RTI Act stating that information which cannot be denied to a Parliament or State legislature will not be denied to any person: thereby costing citizens loss of access to information available to the above-mentioned legislatures.
Civil society raises their voice
Building on these concerns, civil society groups, including the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), and Common Cause India have launched a campaign demanding the rollback of this amendment. Making this announcement on X, IFF argued that although the original sections in the RTI Act balanced privacy and transparency while adding safeguards and ensuring accountability, the DPDPA amendment removes any such protections.
Further, echoing Kharge’s argument, RTI activist and SNS member Anjali Bhardwaj explained in an X (formerly Twitter) post that the amendment would ‘severely restrict access to critical information’ like ration card and MGNREGA data, and reduce opportunities for conducting social audits. She added that the provision of granular information like personal details used to counter corruption and human rights violations would be hindered. Bhardwaj also cited future examples like the prohibition of sharing electoral and voter lists with the public on account of them containing personal data like names and addresses of individual voters. She argued that such modifications to the RTI Act reduce opportunities for government accountability and have ‘no place in a democracy.’
Furthermore, while talking to MediaNama, Bhardwaj explained how the exemption of all personal information would diminish citizens’ ability to receive information. “For instance, if students request information about SC/ST scholarship lists via RTI, they can now be denied the same under the aegis that it classifies as personal information, as it includes the students’ names. While such lists could be examined to ascertain whether the rightful beneficiaries have accrued benefits, the same wouldn’t be possible under the new amendment”, she added. Finally, Bhardwaj underscored the importance of the RTI Act in exposing scandals like the ‘Adarsh‘ housing and Delhi Public Works Department (PWD) scams, in addition to holding the government accountable.
Other concerns raised by experts:
Experts have highlighted additional consequences of this amendment:
Indian National Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge accused the Central Government of weakening the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by implementing the Data Protection Law.
How does the DPDPA dilute the RTI Act?
To explain, India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, specifically Section 44(3) amends a section of the RTI Act to read as “information which relates to personal information”. This affects Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which lists exemptions from the disclosure of information under the Act, particularly subsection (j) which comprises personal information whose disclosure has no relationship with any public activity or interest, or could cause “unwarranted invasion” of an individual’s privacy. However, this provision can be overridden by the Central/State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority if “larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”.
As explained previously, through the amendment, the government can decline any information relating to a person requested via RTI. Besides this, the government also removed a clause from the RTI Act stating that information which cannot be denied to a Parliament or State legislature will not be denied to any person: thereby costing citizens loss of access to information available to the above-mentioned legislatures.
Civil society raises their voice
Building on these concerns, civil society groups, including the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), and Common Cause India have launched a campaign demanding the rollback of this amendment. Making this announcement on X, IFF argued that although the original sections in the RTI Act balanced privacy and transparency while adding safeguards and ensuring accountability, the DPDPA amendment removes any such protections.
Further, echoing Kharge’s argument, RTI activist and SNS member Anjali Bhardwaj explained in an X (formerly Twitter) post that the amendment would ‘severely restrict access to critical information’ like ration card and MGNREGA data, and reduce opportunities for conducting social audits. She added that the provision of granular information like personal details used to counter corruption and human rights violations would be hindered. Bhardwaj also cited future examples like the prohibition of sharing electoral and voter lists with the public on account of them containing personal data like names and addresses of individual voters. She argued that such modifications to the RTI Act reduce opportunities for government accountability and have ‘no place in a democracy.’
Furthermore, while talking to MediaNama, Bhardwaj explained how the exemption of all personal information would diminish citizens’ ability to receive information. “For instance, if students request information about SC/ST scholarship lists via RTI, they can now be denied the same under the aegis that it classifies as personal information, as it includes the students’ names. While such lists could be examined to ascertain whether the rightful beneficiaries have accrued benefits, the same wouldn’t be possible under the new amendment”, she added. Finally, Bhardwaj underscored the importance of the RTI Act in exposing scandals like the ‘Adarsh‘ housing and Delhi Public Works Department (PWD) scams, in addition to holding the government accountable.
Other concerns raised by experts:
Experts have highlighted additional consequences of this amendment:
- Creating ‘Right to deny’ information: As explained previously, since the DPDPA defines a “person” along several categories like “an individual; a Hindu undivided family, [etc.]”, everything related to the definition could be considered personal information and denied from being provided to people.
- Opacity in government functioning: Speaking to MediaNama previously, former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi had highlighted that the amendment would make the government “opaque” and dilute the RTI Act used originally to curb corruption.
- Broad definition of personal information: Former Rajya Sabha MP, Dr. Amar Patnaik also noted how the DPDPA failed to define “personal information” as referred to in Section 44(3) of the Act and conflated it with “information” defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, The Economic Times reported.
.JPG)
.JPG)
