Deccan Herald: Editorial Page: Tuesday, 29 April 2025.
DPDP rules can allow the term “personal” to be interpreted wrongly, to deny information under RTI
Significant concerns have
been raised over the adverse impact the Digital Data Protection (DPDP) Act,
2023, might have on the working of a provision of the Right to Information
(RTI) law.
The DPDP Act will soon come into effect with the notification of its rules. Section 44(3) of the Act intends to change Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, exempting all “personal information” from disclosure.
This means that any public information that also contains “personal information” will no longer be made public. Under Section 8(1)(j), government bodies can withhold “information which relates to personal information” if its disclosure is not related to public interest or results in an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
However, the information has to be provided if an appellate authority decides that there is public interest in its disclosure. Section 8(1)(j) is now sought to be amended so that information can be withheld as “personal” without any safeguards and exceptions.
The right to privacy and the right to information are fundamental rights. While the right to privacy was defined so by the Supreme Court in the K S Puttaswamy judgement in 2017, the right to information is part of the right to speech and expression. Both are essential democratic rights; they are not derogatory to each other and one should not be pitched against the other. Section 44(3) tries to do that. The term “personal” is bound to be interpreted wrongly and too widely to cover matters of public interest, and to deny information to those who seek it under the RTI law. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the rights to privacy and transparency must be reconciled in law.
The DPDP Act itself does undermine the citizens’ right to privacy. Section 17(2)(a) of the Act allows the government to exempt its agencies from the law’s provisions and gives them access to citizens’ personal data. This violates the citizen’s rights and the government’s responsibility to ensure the protection of personal data. The Act also exempts any State authority from deletion of data after use. This allows the state agencies to store personal data indefinitely a provision that can be misused against individuals. The government has weakened the RTI steadily through various legal measures and its actions in the past over many years. It should remove the provision in the DPDP Act amending the RTI Act and ensure that the right to privacy is not affected by other provisions of the Act.
DPDP rules can allow the term “personal” to be interpreted wrongly, to deny information under RTI
The DPDP Act will soon come into effect with the notification of its rules. Section 44(3) of the Act intends to change Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, exempting all “personal information” from disclosure.
This means that any public information that also contains “personal information” will no longer be made public. Under Section 8(1)(j), government bodies can withhold “information which relates to personal information” if its disclosure is not related to public interest or results in an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
However, the information has to be provided if an appellate authority decides that there is public interest in its disclosure. Section 8(1)(j) is now sought to be amended so that information can be withheld as “personal” without any safeguards and exceptions.
The right to privacy and the right to information are fundamental rights. While the right to privacy was defined so by the Supreme Court in the K S Puttaswamy judgement in 2017, the right to information is part of the right to speech and expression. Both are essential democratic rights; they are not derogatory to each other and one should not be pitched against the other. Section 44(3) tries to do that. The term “personal” is bound to be interpreted wrongly and too widely to cover matters of public interest, and to deny information to those who seek it under the RTI law. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the rights to privacy and transparency must be reconciled in law.
The DPDP Act itself does undermine the citizens’ right to privacy. Section 17(2)(a) of the Act allows the government to exempt its agencies from the law’s provisions and gives them access to citizens’ personal data. This violates the citizen’s rights and the government’s responsibility to ensure the protection of personal data. The Act also exempts any State authority from deletion of data after use. This allows the state agencies to store personal data indefinitely a provision that can be misused against individuals. The government has weakened the RTI steadily through various legal measures and its actions in the past over many years. It should remove the provision in the DPDP Act amending the RTI Act and ensure that the right to privacy is not affected by other provisions of the Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
