[Answered] Critically analyze the proposition that the DPDPA threatens to destroy the power of the RTI Act. Examine the need to harmonize data privacy and the right to know.

Introduction

India ranks 111th in the World Press Freedom Index (2024), reflecting democratic backsliding in transparency. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023 risks eroding the hard-won transparency under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Spirit and Power of the RTI Act

1. The Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, born from grassroots movements like the MKSS campaign in Beawar, transformed citizen–state relations. It operationalized Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution — freedom of speech and expression — by recognizing that the “right to know” is integral to informed citizenship.

1. Since 2005, more than 3 crore RTI applications have been filed, exposing major scams like Adarsh Housing, Vyapam, and 2G spectrum.
2. The Act’s Section 8(1)(j) balanced privacy and public interest by exempting personal information unrelated to public activity, yet allowing disclosure if public interest outweighed privacy.

4. This equilibrium — between transparency and accountability — made RTI one of the world’s strongest sunshine laws.

How the DPDPA Threatens RTI’s Core Power

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, while necessary for privacy in the digital age, overreaches into transparency frameworks.

1. Blanket Exemption through Section 44(3): It amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI to provide absolute exemption on “personal information”, removing the earlier public interest override.
   This effectively means no citizen can seek the name, designation, or responsibility of an official involved in misconduct.
2. Deletion of the “Parliamentary Parity Clause”: The clause — “Information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to any citizen” — is deleted, undermining the principle of co-equality between citizens and legislators.
3. Disproportionate Penalties: Fines up to ₹250 crore deter journalists, whistle-blowers, and civil society actors, chilling freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
4. Centralization and Discretion: The power to override exemptions now rests solely with the government, removing citizens’ ability to challenge denials — violating the principle of administrative accountability enshrined in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981).

The Need to Harmonize Privacy and Right to Know

1. Both privacy and transparency stem from the same constitutional ethos of informational autonomy and democratic participation.
2. The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognized privacy as a fundamental right, but emphasized that it is not absolute — it must be balanced with public interest.

Harmonization Requires

1. Definitional Clarity: Restrict “personal data” to information unrelated to public duty rather than blanket protection.
2. Public Interest Test: Reinstate Section 8(2) override — ensuring disclosure when public interest clearly outweighs privacy.
3. Independent Oversight: Establish a Data Protection Board autonomous from the executive to adjudicate conflicts between privacy and transparency.
4. Proportionality Doctrine: Adopt the Puttaswamy four-fold test — legality, necessity, proportionality, and safeguards — before restricting information flow.
5. Digital Governance Architecture: Link DPDPA and RTI portals through interoperable APIs to ensure selective anonymization, not secrecy.

Way Forward

1. Strengthen Whistleblower Protection Act (2014) to safeguard RTI users.
2. Periodic Parliamentary Review of privacy-transparency conflicts.
3. Public Data Trusts enabling anonymized, open access for researchers.
4. Awareness Campaigns to promote responsible use of both laws.

Conclusion

As Amartya Sen writes in “Development as Freedom”, transparency empowers citizens to demand justice. Harmonizing privacy and right to know ensures democracy’s integrity, not secrecy, becomes India’s defining strength.