The Indian Express: Opinion: Thursday, 19 February 2026.
“Shaping AI for Humanity, Inclusive Growth, and a Sustainable Future” seems like an empty slogan.
Prime Minister Narendra
Modi has inaugurated the Global AI-India Impact Summit, running from February
16th to 20th, with the lofty slogan, “Shaping AI for Humanity, Inclusive
Growth, and a Sustainable Future.” Yet, beneath the fanfare of what is essentially
a corporate-government meeting and promotion for startups, a more disturbing
reality is unfolding. At a time when India stands at the crossroads of
mandating how information is accessed, processed, and used, the very regime
meant to empower citizens has been dismantled. The summit, ostensibly about
“humanity,” is taking place in the shadow of the Digital Personal Data
Protection Act (DPDPA), a law that has fundamentally undermined the Right to
Information (RTI) and comprehensively failed to protect the right to privacy.
India’s information regime invites a fundamental question: What information can be accessed, processed, and used by citizens, rulers, and the commercial sector? At the heart of this question is a simple and constitutional precept citizens have fundamental rights of their own data, which includes public data, both individual and collective. The collective ownership of information affecting public activity and interest requires strong provisions for the right to information. The need to protect information whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy mandates a careful balance between the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy. Groups and experts working in both domains have advocated such a balance.
The RTI Act defined information expansively and comprehensively. It was celebrated for its practical approach in mandating proactive disclosure and making information accessible on demand. It had a carefully worked out set of exemptions, including protection of the individual’s right to privacy. It is important to mention that RTI and RTP activists sat together and crafted a formulation where privacy was defined as “personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.” It allowed a public interest override even if that meant breach of privacy, when public interest necessitated disclosure of information.
This formulation stood the test of 20 years of application and implementation, with no major complaints of people’s privacy being breached. In fact, RTI users felt it was far too often used as a shield to hide misdeeds that actually “have a relationship to public activity or interest”. The RTI Act was brought in to help citizens fight corruption, challenge arbitrary exercise of power, and realise their rights. The careful balance it struck between information access and privacy protection made these objectives achievable. Its two-decade-long experience should have been able to offer the world lessons on how “AI for Humanity” could be shaped to empower citizens globally. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) has been propagated as a rights-based law empowering people in the age of big data where their activity and lives are monetised through “datafication”. Enacted in 2023 and notified only on November 14th, 2025, it was expected to define and regulate digital data use while protecting privacy. In recent months, there has been an outcry from large numbers of citizens and advocates of information in the public interest, people who champion both the right to privacy and the right to information. The basic problem is shocking as neither act defines the right to privacy, or includes a gradation for the legal treatment of personal data. The RTI defined information and carved out a carefully drafted exemption that protected privacy.
This conflation has dealt a body blow to the RTI and access to meaningful information. None of the RTI Act’s three core objectives, fighting corruption, challenging arbitrary power, or empowering citizens to realise their rights, can be achieved when any information containing identifiers is automatically exempt.
Given the wide powers and exemptions the state has under the DPDPA and the technical nature of consent that only big data companies will be able to extract at every digital step, the objectives of “Shaping AI for Humanity, Inclusive Growth, and a Sustainable Future” seem like an empty slogan, and the summit serves as a spectacle. It is meant to hide the enormous power and money they will continue to build through efficiency-enhancing algorithms and “self-learning” machines. Having been excluded by law from accessing or processing information, Indian citizens and others from across the globe attending this summit, with an interest in use of information for public purposes, should not be left with any illusion that they have a place at the table to discuss the fundamentals of the information regime and its use in AI.
(Dey is a co-convenor of the National Campaign for the People’s Right to Information, and a founder member of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan. Gupta is a Lawyer and Founder Director, Internet Freedom Foundation)
“Shaping AI for Humanity, Inclusive Growth, and a Sustainable Future” seems like an empty slogan.
 |
| Indian citizens and others from across the globe attending this summit, with an interest in the use of information for public purposes, should not be left with any illusion that they have a place at the table to discuss the fundamentals of the information regime and its use in AI. |
India’s information regime invites a fundamental question: What information can be accessed, processed, and used by citizens, rulers, and the commercial sector? At the heart of this question is a simple and constitutional precept citizens have fundamental rights of their own data, which includes public data, both individual and collective. The collective ownership of information affecting public activity and interest requires strong provisions for the right to information. The need to protect information whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy mandates a careful balance between the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy. Groups and experts working in both domains have advocated such a balance.
The RTI Act defined information expansively and comprehensively. It was celebrated for its practical approach in mandating proactive disclosure and making information accessible on demand. It had a carefully worked out set of exemptions, including protection of the individual’s right to privacy. It is important to mention that RTI and RTP activists sat together and crafted a formulation where privacy was defined as “personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.” It allowed a public interest override even if that meant breach of privacy, when public interest necessitated disclosure of information.
This formulation stood the test of 20 years of application and implementation, with no major complaints of people’s privacy being breached. In fact, RTI users felt it was far too often used as a shield to hide misdeeds that actually “have a relationship to public activity or interest”. The RTI Act was brought in to help citizens fight corruption, challenge arbitrary exercise of power, and realise their rights. The careful balance it struck between information access and privacy protection made these objectives achievable. Its two-decade-long experience should have been able to offer the world lessons on how “AI for Humanity” could be shaped to empower citizens globally. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) has been propagated as a rights-based law empowering people in the age of big data where their activity and lives are monetised through “datafication”. Enacted in 2023 and notified only on November 14th, 2025, it was expected to define and regulate digital data use while protecting privacy. In recent months, there has been an outcry from large numbers of citizens and advocates of information in the public interest, people who champion both the right to privacy and the right to information. The basic problem is shocking as neither act defines the right to privacy, or includes a gradation for the legal treatment of personal data. The RTI defined information and carved out a carefully drafted exemption that protected privacy.
This conflation has dealt a body blow to the RTI and access to meaningful information. None of the RTI Act’s three core objectives, fighting corruption, challenging arbitrary power, or empowering citizens to realise their rights, can be achieved when any information containing identifiers is automatically exempt.
Given the wide powers and exemptions the state has under the DPDPA and the technical nature of consent that only big data companies will be able to extract at every digital step, the objectives of “Shaping AI for Humanity, Inclusive Growth, and a Sustainable Future” seem like an empty slogan, and the summit serves as a spectacle. It is meant to hide the enormous power and money they will continue to build through efficiency-enhancing algorithms and “self-learning” machines. Having been excluded by law from accessing or processing information, Indian citizens and others from across the globe attending this summit, with an interest in use of information for public purposes, should not be left with any illusion that they have a place at the table to discuss the fundamentals of the information regime and its use in AI.
(Dey is a co-convenor of the National Campaign for the People’s Right to Information, and a founder member of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan. Gupta is a Lawyer and Founder Director, Internet Freedom Foundation)
.JPG)
.JPG)
