DTNEXT: Chennai: Saturday, 1St November 2025.
On the sidelines of an awareness event organised by Arappor Iyakkam recently, transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj spoke about how the Digital
Personal Data Protection
(DPDP) Act alters the spirit of the RTI law on its 20th anniversary.
Twenty years on, how do you see RTI’s evolution?
It’s been one of the most empowering laws for the common people. It gave citizens the right to question and seek information be it seeking information about the poor-quality roads or the recipient of huge loans from public sector banks who vanished. But governments have increasingly found this inconvenient, and in recent years, the pressure to dilute RTI has been constant. The most serious step came with the DPDP Law, which was passed in 2023.
What exactly does the DPDP Act change in the RTI framework?
Section 44 (3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Earlier, personal information could be withheld only if its disclosure had no public interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. But even then, if larger public interest justified disclosure, the information had to be provided. That public interest clause is now gone. The amendment states simply that personal information cannot be disclosed. So, if someone files an RTI asking for the name of a contractor who misused funds or a public servant accused of wrongdoing, the reply could now be that names are personal data. It can extend further. Voter rolls contain names, addresses and photographs. Once the DPDP Act takes effect, even the Election Commission of India could argue that these details cannot be made public. This has serious implications for identifying fake voters, wrongful deletions and electoral manipulation.
The law hasn’t yet come into force. Are these worries premature?
The concern is justified because the government has already issued draft rules and said they will be notified soon. It does more than amend the RTI Act. It establishes a Data Protection Board under the Centre’s control, and defines everyone who collects or publishes personal data,
individuals, NGOs, companies, journalists as ‘data fiduciaries. Any complaint against them can attract penalties of up to Rs 500 crore. That scale of punishment is intimidating and will inevitably discourage legitimate use of information.
How would such restrictions play out for ordinary people?
Take the example of scholarships for SC, STs or others. There are cases that ineligible applicants have received the benefits, while the rightful students are left out. They file RTIs asking for names and addresses of beneficiaries, and when the data shows irregularities, they are able to demand correction and get what they are entitled to. Under the new regime, such requests can simply be denied because names are personal information. If people cannot know who is receiving what benefit, or which officer is responsible for approving applications, they lose their ability to expose corruption. The same applies to rations, pensions etc.
On institutional erosion…
It’s very serious. Vacancies in Information Commissions have persisted for years. Citizens have had to approach the Supreme Court just to compel appointments. Without such court orders, many commissions would have remained defunct. The Central Information Commission, for example, hasn’t seen a full bench in years. Governments, both at the Centre and in the states, are comfortable letting the RTI framework wither through neglect.
What about Lokpal’s performance?
The Lokpal law was brought in to create an independent anti-corruption body, separate from agencies like the CBI and CVC, which were seen as compromised. But the government took five years to appoint a Lokpal, and when it did, it excluded the Leader of Opposition from the selection process, giving itself majority control. Since 2019, almost 90% of complaints to the Lokpal have been rejected. The body hasn’t published its annual report since 2021-22. That’s the state.
If political consensus is weak, what can citizens do to protect RTI?
The RTI movement began as a grassroots effort, not as a government initiative. Its strength lies in people using it. Legal challenges are already being heard in the Supreme Court and in several High Courts, but sustained public pressure is vital.
On the sidelines of an awareness event organised by Arappor Iyakkam recently, transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj spoke about how the Digital
Twenty years on, how do you see RTI’s evolution?
It’s been one of the most empowering laws for the common people. It gave citizens the right to question and seek information be it seeking information about the poor-quality roads or the recipient of huge loans from public sector banks who vanished. But governments have increasingly found this inconvenient, and in recent years, the pressure to dilute RTI has been constant. The most serious step came with the DPDP Law, which was passed in 2023.
What exactly does the DPDP Act change in the RTI framework?
Section 44 (3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Earlier, personal information could be withheld only if its disclosure had no public interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. But even then, if larger public interest justified disclosure, the information had to be provided. That public interest clause is now gone. The amendment states simply that personal information cannot be disclosed. So, if someone files an RTI asking for the name of a contractor who misused funds or a public servant accused of wrongdoing, the reply could now be that names are personal data. It can extend further. Voter rolls contain names, addresses and photographs. Once the DPDP Act takes effect, even the Election Commission of India could argue that these details cannot be made public. This has serious implications for identifying fake voters, wrongful deletions and electoral manipulation.
The law hasn’t yet come into force. Are these worries premature?
The concern is justified because the government has already issued draft rules and said they will be notified soon. It does more than amend the RTI Act. It establishes a Data Protection Board under the Centre’s control, and defines everyone who collects or publishes personal data,
individuals, NGOs, companies, journalists as ‘data fiduciaries. Any complaint against them can attract penalties of up to Rs 500 crore. That scale of punishment is intimidating and will inevitably discourage legitimate use of information.
How would such restrictions play out for ordinary people?
Take the example of scholarships for SC, STs or others. There are cases that ineligible applicants have received the benefits, while the rightful students are left out. They file RTIs asking for names and addresses of beneficiaries, and when the data shows irregularities, they are able to demand correction and get what they are entitled to. Under the new regime, such requests can simply be denied because names are personal information. If people cannot know who is receiving what benefit, or which officer is responsible for approving applications, they lose their ability to expose corruption. The same applies to rations, pensions etc.
On institutional erosion…
It’s very serious. Vacancies in Information Commissions have persisted for years. Citizens have had to approach the Supreme Court just to compel appointments. Without such court orders, many commissions would have remained defunct. The Central Information Commission, for example, hasn’t seen a full bench in years. Governments, both at the Centre and in the states, are comfortable letting the RTI framework wither through neglect.
What about Lokpal’s performance?
The Lokpal law was brought in to create an independent anti-corruption body, separate from agencies like the CBI and CVC, which were seen as compromised. But the government took five years to appoint a Lokpal, and when it did, it excluded the Leader of Opposition from the selection process, giving itself majority control. Since 2019, almost 90% of complaints to the Lokpal have been rejected. The body hasn’t published its annual report since 2021-22. That’s the state.
If political consensus is weak, what can citizens do to protect RTI?
The RTI movement began as a grassroots effort, not as a government initiative. Its strength lies in people using it. Legal challenges are already being heard in the Supreme Court and in several High Courts, but sustained public pressure is vital.
.JPG)
.JPG)
