The Hindu: New Delhi: Monday, 14 April 2025.
Mr. Ramesh warns that the
proposed amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2005, will have a
“devastating” effect on the transparency law.
The letter was in response
to Mr. Vaishnaw’s assurance to an earlier letter by Mr. Ramesh, in which the
Congress leader had expressed concern over Section 44 (3) of the Digital
Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, which would place a blanket ban on
sharing any “personal information” with RTI applicants.
Mr. Vaishnaw had responded to Mr. Ramesh, saying that the amendment was aimed at preventing “misuse” of the law, and the information that is specifically required to be disclosed (such as salaries of public officials) would remain accessible.
Civil society groups have raised alarm since 2023 about this amendment to the RTI Act, which would strike out all but the first six words in Section 8(1)(j), which exempts “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless” officials are convinced that the “larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”.
Thanking the Minister for his response, Mr. Ramesh on Sunday said, “I now wish to make four points by way of a counter-response to your defence of the RTI-destroying amendment.”
“First, Section 3 of the DPDP Act, 2023, cited in your letter as protecting disclosures under the RTI Act 2005, is wholly irrelevant since Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 itself has been amended drastically,” he said. “Section 3 of the DPDP Act will now only protect disclosures as per the amended RTI Act, which exempts all personal information from being accessible.”
Second, the operation of the RTI Act, 2005 informed by several judgments by the Supreme Court and various High Courts has demonstrated that the law is able to withhold the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, Mr. Ramesh said.
Third, the deletion of the proviso in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which recognises the citizens’ right to information as being at par with that of legislators is “completely unwarranted”, the Congress general secretary said in the letter to Mr. Vaishnaw. “In fact, that proviso is applicable not just to the personal information exemption, but all exemptions in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
Mr. Vaishnaw had argued that the Supreme Court judgment in the Puttaswamy v. Union of India case in 2017 effectively nullified much of the exemption. Hence, the amendment was included in the DPDP Act, 2023.
In response to this, Mr. Ramesh said, “Fourth, you mention the Puttaswamy judgment of the Supreme Court. Please do remember that nowhere in this judgment is it mentioned that the RTI Act, 2005 itself needs to be amended.”
“The judgement reinforces that safeguarding personal privacy and promoting institutional transparency are not mutually exclusive but are jointly essential,” he said.
“I would therefore strongly again urge you to pause, review, and repeal the amendment made to the RTI Act, 2005. As you would have seen, this issue has also exercised a broad spectrum of people from civil society, academics, and political parties,” Mr. Ramesh said.
The DPDP Act, 2023, has not yet been notified, but as soon as it is a draft notification has already undergone consultations, and is expected to be finalised in the coming weeks the provision will be cut down.
Along with Mr. Ramesh, 130 Opposition MPs have signed another letter demanding a reversal of the RTI amendment. The pushback has also come from digital advocacy groups as well as transparency groups, most prominently the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information.
 |
| Congress MP Jairam Ramesh. File | Photo Credit: PTI |
Mr. Vaishnaw had responded to Mr. Ramesh, saying that the amendment was aimed at preventing “misuse” of the law, and the information that is specifically required to be disclosed (such as salaries of public officials) would remain accessible.
Civil society groups have raised alarm since 2023 about this amendment to the RTI Act, which would strike out all but the first six words in Section 8(1)(j), which exempts “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless” officials are convinced that the “larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”.
Thanking the Minister for his response, Mr. Ramesh on Sunday said, “I now wish to make four points by way of a counter-response to your defence of the RTI-destroying amendment.”
“First, Section 3 of the DPDP Act, 2023, cited in your letter as protecting disclosures under the RTI Act 2005, is wholly irrelevant since Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 itself has been amended drastically,” he said. “Section 3 of the DPDP Act will now only protect disclosures as per the amended RTI Act, which exempts all personal information from being accessible.”
Second, the operation of the RTI Act, 2005 informed by several judgments by the Supreme Court and various High Courts has demonstrated that the law is able to withhold the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, Mr. Ramesh said.
Third, the deletion of the proviso in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which recognises the citizens’ right to information as being at par with that of legislators is “completely unwarranted”, the Congress general secretary said in the letter to Mr. Vaishnaw. “In fact, that proviso is applicable not just to the personal information exemption, but all exemptions in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
Mr. Vaishnaw had argued that the Supreme Court judgment in the Puttaswamy v. Union of India case in 2017 effectively nullified much of the exemption. Hence, the amendment was included in the DPDP Act, 2023.
In response to this, Mr. Ramesh said, “Fourth, you mention the Puttaswamy judgment of the Supreme Court. Please do remember that nowhere in this judgment is it mentioned that the RTI Act, 2005 itself needs to be amended.”
“The judgement reinforces that safeguarding personal privacy and promoting institutional transparency are not mutually exclusive but are jointly essential,” he said.
“I would therefore strongly again urge you to pause, review, and repeal the amendment made to the RTI Act, 2005. As you would have seen, this issue has also exercised a broad spectrum of people from civil society, academics, and political parties,” Mr. Ramesh said.
The DPDP Act, 2023, has not yet been notified, but as soon as it is a draft notification has already undergone consultations, and is expected to be finalised in the coming weeks the provision will be cut down.
Along with Mr. Ramesh, 130 Opposition MPs have signed another letter demanding a reversal of the RTI amendment. The pushback has also come from digital advocacy groups as well as transparency groups, most prominently the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information.
In a letter to Union
Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw on Sunday, Congress Rajya
Sabha member Jairam Ramesh warned that the proposed amendment to the Right to
Information Act, 2005, would have a “devastating” effect on the transparency
law. He urged Mr. Vaishnaw to “pause, review, and repeal” the change.
.JPG)
.JPG)
