The Print: New Delhi: Sunday, March 23, 2025.
30+ groups voice their concerns over the yet-to-be-implemented Digital Personal Data Protection Act, a provision of which amends RTI Act.
More than 30 civil society
organisations have united to oppose changes to the Right to Information (RTI)
Act, 2005. Addressing media persons Friday, the members of these groups warned
that an amendment passed in 2023 by means of a provision in the Digital
Personal Data Protection Act, will significantly reduce the amount of
information government agencies are obligated to disclose. They emphasised that
access to such information is crucial for ensuring accountability and
uncovering corruption.
The amendment is yet to be implemented as the necessary subordinate legislation to enforce the DPDP Act has not yet been issued.
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act introduces a broad exemption for all personal information, eliminating previous provisions that permitted disclosure when the information was linked to public activity, served public interest, or did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
“Now, simply publishing someone’s name without consent could have severe consequences,” warned Nikhil Dey, co-founder of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and co-convenor of National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).
Dey said that the issue extends beyond RTI activism, merging concerns of both privacy and transparency. “This law fails to truly protect privacy or data.”
The amendment also removes a key provision of RTI Act stating that information which cannot be withheld from Parliament or a state legislature should also be accessible to the public. This change was introduced through the final section of the DPDP Act, 2023, which primarily focuses on establishing guidelines for safeguarding Indians’ personal data on digital platforms.
Describing it as a “double-edged sword” and likening it to another “weapon like UAPA”, Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of the NCPRI and a founding member of Satark Nagrik Sangathan, criticised the amendment for dismantling key safeguards.
“While the RTI Act now restricts access to information, the Data Protection Act classifies researchers, journalists and activists as data fiduciaries, requiring them to obtain consent for data collection. Any complaint against them would be handled by the government-controlled Data Protection Board, which has the power to impose fines of up to ₹500 crore,” she said.
Apar Gupta, founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, described the Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy as siblings both rooted in Part III of the Indian Constitution and essential to democracy. “Democracy isn’t just about voting; it’s about holding the government accountable, which we do by questioning decisions through RTI. At the same time, the state must respect personal privacy,” he said.
Gupta criticised the DPDP Act for creating unnecessary friction between these rights. He said that prior expert committees, including the Justice A.P. Shah Committee, had recognised this balance, and past discussions had concluded that RTI should not be amended, as Section 8(1)(j) already protects privacy, while allowing disclosure in the public interest.
“This crucial balance has now been erased, stripping authorities of their ability to assess cases individually,” he warned, adding that the new law ultimately fails to protect privacy.
The press conference featured several prominent RTI activists, legal experts, media representatives and civil society members, including MKSS founder Aruna Roy, Senior advocate and public interest litigator Prashant Bhushan, former civil servant and transparency advocate Kamal Jaswal, former central information commissioner M.M. Ansari, and journalist and researcher Pragya Singh.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
30+ groups voice their concerns over the yet-to-be-implemented Digital Personal Data Protection Act, a provision of which amends RTI Act.
The amendment is yet to be implemented as the necessary subordinate legislation to enforce the DPDP Act has not yet been issued.
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act introduces a broad exemption for all personal information, eliminating previous provisions that permitted disclosure when the information was linked to public activity, served public interest, or did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
“Now, simply publishing someone’s name without consent could have severe consequences,” warned Nikhil Dey, co-founder of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and co-convenor of National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).
Dey said that the issue extends beyond RTI activism, merging concerns of both privacy and transparency. “This law fails to truly protect privacy or data.”
The amendment also removes a key provision of RTI Act stating that information which cannot be withheld from Parliament or a state legislature should also be accessible to the public. This change was introduced through the final section of the DPDP Act, 2023, which primarily focuses on establishing guidelines for safeguarding Indians’ personal data on digital platforms.
Describing it as a “double-edged sword” and likening it to another “weapon like UAPA”, Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of the NCPRI and a founding member of Satark Nagrik Sangathan, criticised the amendment for dismantling key safeguards.
“While the RTI Act now restricts access to information, the Data Protection Act classifies researchers, journalists and activists as data fiduciaries, requiring them to obtain consent for data collection. Any complaint against them would be handled by the government-controlled Data Protection Board, which has the power to impose fines of up to ₹500 crore,” she said.
Apar Gupta, founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, described the Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy as siblings both rooted in Part III of the Indian Constitution and essential to democracy. “Democracy isn’t just about voting; it’s about holding the government accountable, which we do by questioning decisions through RTI. At the same time, the state must respect personal privacy,” he said.
Gupta criticised the DPDP Act for creating unnecessary friction between these rights. He said that prior expert committees, including the Justice A.P. Shah Committee, had recognised this balance, and past discussions had concluded that RTI should not be amended, as Section 8(1)(j) already protects privacy, while allowing disclosure in the public interest.
“This crucial balance has now been erased, stripping authorities of their ability to assess cases individually,” he warned, adding that the new law ultimately fails to protect privacy.
The press conference featured several prominent RTI activists, legal experts, media representatives and civil society members, including MKSS founder Aruna Roy, Senior advocate and public interest litigator Prashant Bhushan, former civil servant and transparency advocate Kamal Jaswal, former central information commissioner M.M. Ansari, and journalist and researcher Pragya Singh.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
.JPG)
.JPG)
