The Indian Express: New Delhi: Monday, 14 April 2025.
Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw dismissed concerns that certain provisions of the DPDP Act would render the RTI Act toothless. In light of this, learn about the RTI Act and go 'Beyond the Nugget' to know about the Right to Privacy.
Take a look at the
essential concepts, terms, quotes, or phenomena every day and brush up your
knowledge. Here’s your knowledge nugget for today.
Knowledge Nugget: RTI Act
Subject: Polity
(Relevance: Questions have been asked on the RTI Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy. As the discussion around the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) has intensified as it is going to be implemented soon, it becomes important to know about the whole debate around DPDPA and the RTI Act.)
Why in the news?
Recently, Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi has called the Digital Personal Data Protection Act “draconian” and said, “The DPDP Act keeps all personal information out. In this new provision, you won’t be able to know under RTI which contractor built bridges in Bihar that collapsed.” Opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, K C Venugopal and John Brittas had also written to Vaishnaw to repeal Section 44 (3) of the Act, as it “amends the Right to Information”. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Priyanka Chaturvedi said, “You are taking RTI towards ‘road to ignorance’, so that people do not get to know about any corruption.”
Union Information and Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw dismissed the INDIA bloc leaders’ concerns that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act would render the RTI Act toothless and make investigative journalism difficult, and said that it was in harmony with both privacy and transparency in public life.
Key Takeaways:
1. The DPDP Act propose to amend the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. This section prevents a public authority from sharing anyone’s personal information on two main grounds – that the disclosure will have no bearing on any public activity, and that revealing such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual, unless such disclosure is justified in larger public interest.
2. According to the proposed DPDP law, the two key grounds, that such information could be disclosed provided it serves a larger public interest, have been done away with. Some weeks back, a clutch of organisations dealing with RTI and internet freedom launched a campaign against sections of the DPDP Act, they said, which imposes a blanket ban on disclosure of personal information without consent.
About RTI Act
3. The RTI Act, which came into force in October 2005, was seen as a significant development towards freedom of information. It gave ordinary citizens the right to request information from government bodies, making authorities accountable for their actions and decisions.
4. According to the official site of the Right to Information, “the basic object of the RTI Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in a real sense.” These are the four pillars of the Act.
5. The RTI Act, 2005, provided for a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions to deal with appeals and complaints against public authorities. Section 12 of the RTI Act states, “The Central Information Commission shall consist of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), and such number of Central Information Commissioners, not exceeding 10, as may be deemed necessary.”
6. Last year, Delhi High Court observed that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has no jurisdiction to comment on the utilisation of funds by the members of Parliament under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme.
7. The Supreme Court, while observing that the autonomy of CIC is of paramount importance for its effective functioning, ruled that Section 12(4) of the RTI Act gives power to Central Information Commission to constitute benches and frame regulations.
8. Yashovardhan Azad mentions the challenges facing the CIC Vacancies in Information Commissions, mounting pendency, delayed hearing of second appeals, perceptible opacity, and the casual approach of officers in dealing with RTI queries.
9. Satark Nagrik Sangathan, in its 2024 study of State Information Commissions’ performances, found that four out of 29 are defunct and at least three are still headless. In 10 commissions, the waiting time for hearing after filing an appeal is over a year. Nineteen of the 29 Commissions have not cared to file their annual report, mandatory under the Act.
BEYOND THE NUGGET: Right to Privacy
1. Union Minister Vaishnav, in response to the opposition claims, underlined that protection of personal information was important as the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment had held privacy to be an integral part of the Right to Life. This data protection act is in harmony with both privacy and transparency in public life.
2. In August, 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in K. Puttaswamy v Union of India Case ruled unanimously that “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”.
3. Justice Puttaswamy famously challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, which led to the Supreme Court recognising the right to privacy under the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Post read question
Consider the following statement about the RTI Act:
1. The act provides for the constitution of a constitutional body of the Chief Information Commissioner.
2. It gives power to the CIC to recommend financial prudence to the MPLAD funds.
3. It has the power to constitute benches and frame regulations.
Which of the following statements is/are correct?
(a) 2 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw dismissed concerns that certain provisions of the DPDP Act would render the RTI Act toothless. In light of this, learn about the RTI Act and go 'Beyond the Nugget' to know about the Right to Privacy.
Knowledge Nugget: RTI Act
Subject: Polity
(Relevance: Questions have been asked on the RTI Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy. As the discussion around the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) has intensified as it is going to be implemented soon, it becomes important to know about the whole debate around DPDPA and the RTI Act.)
Why in the news?
Recently, Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi has called the Digital Personal Data Protection Act “draconian” and said, “The DPDP Act keeps all personal information out. In this new provision, you won’t be able to know under RTI which contractor built bridges in Bihar that collapsed.” Opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, K C Venugopal and John Brittas had also written to Vaishnaw to repeal Section 44 (3) of the Act, as it “amends the Right to Information”. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Priyanka Chaturvedi said, “You are taking RTI towards ‘road to ignorance’, so that people do not get to know about any corruption.”
Union Information and Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw dismissed the INDIA bloc leaders’ concerns that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act would render the RTI Act toothless and make investigative journalism difficult, and said that it was in harmony with both privacy and transparency in public life.
Key Takeaways:
1. The DPDP Act propose to amend the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. This section prevents a public authority from sharing anyone’s personal information on two main grounds – that the disclosure will have no bearing on any public activity, and that revealing such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual, unless such disclosure is justified in larger public interest.
2. According to the proposed DPDP law, the two key grounds, that such information could be disclosed provided it serves a larger public interest, have been done away with. Some weeks back, a clutch of organisations dealing with RTI and internet freedom launched a campaign against sections of the DPDP Act, they said, which imposes a blanket ban on disclosure of personal information without consent.
About RTI Act
3. The RTI Act, which came into force in October 2005, was seen as a significant development towards freedom of information. It gave ordinary citizens the right to request information from government bodies, making authorities accountable for their actions and decisions.
4. According to the official site of the Right to Information, “the basic object of the RTI Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in a real sense.” These are the four pillars of the Act.
5. The RTI Act, 2005, provided for a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions to deal with appeals and complaints against public authorities. Section 12 of the RTI Act states, “The Central Information Commission shall consist of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), and such number of Central Information Commissioners, not exceeding 10, as may be deemed necessary.”
6. Last year, Delhi High Court observed that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has no jurisdiction to comment on the utilisation of funds by the members of Parliament under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme.
7. The Supreme Court, while observing that the autonomy of CIC is of paramount importance for its effective functioning, ruled that Section 12(4) of the RTI Act gives power to Central Information Commission to constitute benches and frame regulations.
8. Yashovardhan Azad mentions the challenges facing the CIC Vacancies in Information Commissions, mounting pendency, delayed hearing of second appeals, perceptible opacity, and the casual approach of officers in dealing with RTI queries.
9. Satark Nagrik Sangathan, in its 2024 study of State Information Commissions’ performances, found that four out of 29 are defunct and at least three are still headless. In 10 commissions, the waiting time for hearing after filing an appeal is over a year. Nineteen of the 29 Commissions have not cared to file their annual report, mandatory under the Act.
BEYOND THE NUGGET: Right to Privacy
1. Union Minister Vaishnav, in response to the opposition claims, underlined that protection of personal information was important as the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment had held privacy to be an integral part of the Right to Life. This data protection act is in harmony with both privacy and transparency in public life.
2. In August, 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in K. Puttaswamy v Union of India Case ruled unanimously that “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”.
3. Justice Puttaswamy famously challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, which led to the Supreme Court recognising the right to privacy under the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Post read question
Consider the following statement about the RTI Act:
1. The act provides for the constitution of a constitutional body of the Chief Information Commissioner.
2. It gives power to the CIC to recommend financial prudence to the MPLAD funds.
3. It has the power to constitute benches and frame regulations.
Which of the following statements is/are correct?
(a) 2 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
.JPG)
.JPG)
