Down To Earth: New Delhi: Tuesday, March 25, 2025.
Suprme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said the amendment violates people’s Right to Information, which the apex court had upheld as a fundamental right
Civil society members,
including activists, lawyers and experts, have demanded the immediate rollback
of amendments made to the Right to Information (RTI) Act through Section 44(3)
of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
More than 30 organisations and groups, including the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), Satark Nagarik Sangathan (SNS), Common Cause and the Internet Freedom Foundation, made the demand on March 21, 2025, alleging that the amendments fundamentally weakened the RTI Act.
Speaking at a press conference at the Press Club of India in Delhi, members said the amendments restricted access to public data and information, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. They argued that these changes removed provisions that enabled the public to seek accountability and expose corruption in government entities and among officials.
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had adequate safeguards for personal information while also recognising circumstances under which such information should be disclosed to ensure government accountability, stated Anjali Bhardwaj, affiliated with NCPRI and SNS.
“However, the new amendment provides an unconditional exemption for all personal information, removing previous provisions that allowed disclosure in cases related to public activity, public interest, or where there was no unwarranted breach of privacy,” she said.
Bhardwaj added that the amendment had also removed a crucial provision stating that “information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”.
The critics argued that such amendments undermined transparency and weakened the public’s ability to hold authorities accountable. They warned that it would hinder access to governance-related information, such as details on the Public Distribution System (PDS) and electoral rolls.
“These amendments and the blanket exemptions granted under the guise of protecting privacy are designed to kill the essence of the RTI Act,” Nikhil Dey of NCPRI and MKSS said.
Dey also criticised the DPDP Act, 2023, as a “double-edged sword,” arguing that while the RTI Act restricted access to public information, the centralisation of power through the government-controlled Data Protection Board could be weaponised.
The Act allows the imposition of fines up to Rs 500 on individuals seeking information without the consent of the concerned person, particularly those critical of the government, including journalists and civil society members, said Bhardwaj. “Under this law, they will be labelled ‘data fiduciaries’,” she warned.
Aruna Roy of NCPRI and MKSS emphasised that the RTI Act was used by millions to access information and was also a tool for grievance redressal and exposing corruption.
“The Act must be viewed as a fundamental right that enables people to exercise their rights meaningfully and actively contribute to democratic processes,” she said, adding that it needed to be strengthened rather than weakened and should be recognised as a constitutional right.
Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said the blanket ban on the disclosure of personal information under the DPDP Act violated people’s right to information, which the Supreme Court had upheld as a fundamental right in several judgments.
M M Ansari, former Central Information Commissioner, noted that the RTI Act had been repeatedly weakened through amendments. He cited the 2019 changes that diluted the autonomy of information commissions and the latest amendments, which drastically expanded the scope of the privacy exemption.
Civil society members called on the government to withdraw the amendments immediately and restore the RTI Act’s provisions that ensure transparency and accountability.
Suprme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said the amendment violates people’s Right to Information, which the apex court had upheld as a fundamental right
More than 30 organisations and groups, including the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), Satark Nagarik Sangathan (SNS), Common Cause and the Internet Freedom Foundation, made the demand on March 21, 2025, alleging that the amendments fundamentally weakened the RTI Act.
Speaking at a press conference at the Press Club of India in Delhi, members said the amendments restricted access to public data and information, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. They argued that these changes removed provisions that enabled the public to seek accountability and expose corruption in government entities and among officials.
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had adequate safeguards for personal information while also recognising circumstances under which such information should be disclosed to ensure government accountability, stated Anjali Bhardwaj, affiliated with NCPRI and SNS.
“However, the new amendment provides an unconditional exemption for all personal information, removing previous provisions that allowed disclosure in cases related to public activity, public interest, or where there was no unwarranted breach of privacy,” she said.
Bhardwaj added that the amendment had also removed a crucial provision stating that “information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”.
The critics argued that such amendments undermined transparency and weakened the public’s ability to hold authorities accountable. They warned that it would hinder access to governance-related information, such as details on the Public Distribution System (PDS) and electoral rolls.
“These amendments and the blanket exemptions granted under the guise of protecting privacy are designed to kill the essence of the RTI Act,” Nikhil Dey of NCPRI and MKSS said.
Dey also criticised the DPDP Act, 2023, as a “double-edged sword,” arguing that while the RTI Act restricted access to public information, the centralisation of power through the government-controlled Data Protection Board could be weaponised.
The Act allows the imposition of fines up to Rs 500 on individuals seeking information without the consent of the concerned person, particularly those critical of the government, including journalists and civil society members, said Bhardwaj. “Under this law, they will be labelled ‘data fiduciaries’,” she warned.
Aruna Roy of NCPRI and MKSS emphasised that the RTI Act was used by millions to access information and was also a tool for grievance redressal and exposing corruption.
“The Act must be viewed as a fundamental right that enables people to exercise their rights meaningfully and actively contribute to democratic processes,” she said, adding that it needed to be strengthened rather than weakened and should be recognised as a constitutional right.
Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said the blanket ban on the disclosure of personal information under the DPDP Act violated people’s right to information, which the Supreme Court had upheld as a fundamental right in several judgments.
M M Ansari, former Central Information Commissioner, noted that the RTI Act had been repeatedly weakened through amendments. He cited the 2019 changes that diluted the autonomy of information commissions and the latest amendments, which drastically expanded the scope of the privacy exemption.
Civil society members called on the government to withdraw the amendments immediately and restore the RTI Act’s provisions that ensure transparency and accountability.
.JPG)
.JPG)
