Clarion India: New Delhi: Friday, 7Th March
2025.
The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) has expressed grave concern over amendments effected in the Right to Information (RTI) Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) rules.
It submitted a memorandum to
the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on Wednesday
demanding the withdrawal of the DPDP Rules 2025.
The submission highlights the NCPRI’s concerns regarding the amendments made to the RTI Act which will severely restrict access to information; the complete lack of autonomy of the Data Protection Board; and the excessive power being vested in the central government under the act.
NCPRI member Anjali Bhardwaj alleged that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), since it assumed power in 2014, has been attempting to weaken the RTI Act. She underlined that the latest attack under the guise of the DPDP Act would have serious implications for the effectiveness of the RTI Act.
Talking to Clarion India, she warned that Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act has amended the RTI Act which would adversely impact the ability of people to access information under the law.
The NCPRI urged the government not to operationalise Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act.
“The amendment made to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act seeks to exempt all personal information from disclosure. It does away with the exceptions carved out within the RTI Act wherein personal information could be denied only if it had no relationship to any public activity or public interest; or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
“Further, the amendment has also done away with an important proviso to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which states that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person,” the submission noted.
The RTI Act empowered millions of Indian citizens to seek information and hold the government accountable. It is well established that access to granular information, including personal information, is critical to empower people to undertake collective monitoring and ensure they can access their rights and entitlements. The amendments made to the RTI Act will place impediments and restrictions on such public disclosures, it added.
Besides Anjali Bhardwaj, the submission was made by prominent activists including Nikhil Dey, Venkatesh Nayak, Rakesh Reddy Dubbudu, Pankti Jog, Pradip Pradhan, Dr Shaikh, Shailesh Gandhi, Amrita Johri, Chakradhar Buddha, Kathyayini Chamraj, Asmi, Ashok, Abey George, Ajay Jang and others.
They said that “The amendments to the Right to Information Act, 2005 through the DPDP Act fundamentally weaken the RTI Act. We believe that the legal framework for privacy and data protection should complement the RTI Act and in no way undermine or dilute it. Section 1(2) of the DPDP Act gives the power to the Central government to notify the date for the provisions of the DPDP Act to come into force and different dates may be appointed for different provisions.”
“Further, the rules must clarify that the provisions of the DPDP Act will not prevail in case of any conflict between the provisions of this Act and the RTI Act (Rule 38(2)). Feedback on Rule 16 (Appointment of Chairperson and Other Members): The proposed composition of the selection committee consisting entirely of government functionaries and nominees will severely undermine the independence and autonomy of the Data Protection Board. Given that the government is the biggest data repository, the adjudicating body – the Data Protection Board must be appointed and must function independently. Therefore, the chairperson and members of the DPB should be appointed by a committee which does not have a preponderance of government.
“The composition of the selection committee could be along the lines of the committee set up under the Lokpal Act or the committee directed by the Supreme Court to be set up for the appointment of Commissioners to the Election Commission of India (Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India). The creation of a Data Protection Board not adequately independent of the government, with powers to impose fines of up to Rs 250 crore (the central government can raise the maximum penalty imposable under the law to Rs 500 crore by amending the schedule), raises apprehensions of potential misuse by the executive”.
The NCPRI also expressed concern over the excessive powers vested in the Central government under the Act including the power to exempt any government or even private sector entity from the application of provisions of the law by merely issuing a notification.
The NCPRI, therefore, urged the government not to operationalise Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act.
The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) has expressed grave concern over amendments effected in the Right to Information (RTI) Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) rules.
The submission highlights the NCPRI’s concerns regarding the amendments made to the RTI Act which will severely restrict access to information; the complete lack of autonomy of the Data Protection Board; and the excessive power being vested in the central government under the act.
NCPRI member Anjali Bhardwaj alleged that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), since it assumed power in 2014, has been attempting to weaken the RTI Act. She underlined that the latest attack under the guise of the DPDP Act would have serious implications for the effectiveness of the RTI Act.
Talking to Clarion India, she warned that Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act has amended the RTI Act which would adversely impact the ability of people to access information under the law.
The NCPRI urged the government not to operationalise Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act.
“The amendment made to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act seeks to exempt all personal information from disclosure. It does away with the exceptions carved out within the RTI Act wherein personal information could be denied only if it had no relationship to any public activity or public interest; or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
“Further, the amendment has also done away with an important proviso to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which states that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person,” the submission noted.
The RTI Act empowered millions of Indian citizens to seek information and hold the government accountable. It is well established that access to granular information, including personal information, is critical to empower people to undertake collective monitoring and ensure they can access their rights and entitlements. The amendments made to the RTI Act will place impediments and restrictions on such public disclosures, it added.
Besides Anjali Bhardwaj, the submission was made by prominent activists including Nikhil Dey, Venkatesh Nayak, Rakesh Reddy Dubbudu, Pankti Jog, Pradip Pradhan, Dr Shaikh, Shailesh Gandhi, Amrita Johri, Chakradhar Buddha, Kathyayini Chamraj, Asmi, Ashok, Abey George, Ajay Jang and others.
They said that “The amendments to the Right to Information Act, 2005 through the DPDP Act fundamentally weaken the RTI Act. We believe that the legal framework for privacy and data protection should complement the RTI Act and in no way undermine or dilute it. Section 1(2) of the DPDP Act gives the power to the Central government to notify the date for the provisions of the DPDP Act to come into force and different dates may be appointed for different provisions.”
“Further, the rules must clarify that the provisions of the DPDP Act will not prevail in case of any conflict between the provisions of this Act and the RTI Act (Rule 38(2)). Feedback on Rule 16 (Appointment of Chairperson and Other Members): The proposed composition of the selection committee consisting entirely of government functionaries and nominees will severely undermine the independence and autonomy of the Data Protection Board. Given that the government is the biggest data repository, the adjudicating body – the Data Protection Board must be appointed and must function independently. Therefore, the chairperson and members of the DPB should be appointed by a committee which does not have a preponderance of government.
“The composition of the selection committee could be along the lines of the committee set up under the Lokpal Act or the committee directed by the Supreme Court to be set up for the appointment of Commissioners to the Election Commission of India (Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India). The creation of a Data Protection Board not adequately independent of the government, with powers to impose fines of up to Rs 250 crore (the central government can raise the maximum penalty imposable under the law to Rs 500 crore by amending the schedule), raises apprehensions of potential misuse by the executive”.
The NCPRI also expressed concern over the excessive powers vested in the Central government under the Act including the power to exempt any government or even private sector entity from the application of provisions of the law by merely issuing a notification.
The NCPRI, therefore, urged the government not to operationalise Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
