DPDP Act vs RTI Act

Source: The post DPDP Act undermines RTI transparency and fuels corruption risks has been created, based on the article “The RTI’s shift to a ‘right to deny information’” published in “The Hindu” on 13 September 2025. DPDP Act vs RTI Act. 

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2-Governance

Context: The article examines how amendments to the RTI Act via the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act threaten transparency. It explains the original balance in Section 8(1)(j) and the ambiguity around “personal information.” It also describes the chilling effect on public information officers (PIOs) and the consequences for anti-corruption, public monitoring, and democratic accountability.

For detailed information on RTI Amendment via DPDP Act, 2023 read this article here

What was the RTI’s original balance on privacy?

1. Democratic premise and default disclosure: Information held by government belongs to citizens. Representatives and bureaucracy act as custodians. The default is disclosure, with narrow, defined exemptions.
2. Original Section 8(1)(j) and the proviso: Personal information could be withheld only if unconnected to public activity or an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest required disclosure. A proviso set an acid test: what cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any person.
3. Privacy interpretation and constitutional limits: PIOs distinguished public from private activity in context. Privacy evolves case by case, as held in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. Limits arise from Article 19(1)(2), where only “decency” or “morality” bear on privacy. If disclosure violates these, it must be denied to everyone, including Parliament.

How did the DPDP amendment change Section 8(1)(j)?

1. Six-word truncation and widened denial space: Section 8(1)(j) has been drastically shortened, making refusals easier. The key issue now is what counts as ‘personal information’.
2. Competing meanings of “person”: There are two ways to interpret “person.” One view reads “person” as a natural person. Another adopts the DPDP Bill’s expansive definition, including families, firms, companies, associations, and the State. If second view is adopted, almost everything links to some person, turning RTI into a right to deny.
3. Override plus heavy penalties drive risk-aversion: The DPDP Bill overrides other laws in conflicts and carries penalties up to ₹250 crore. With most records digital, PIOs fear errors and will default to denial.
4. RTI’s primacy in transparency: The DPDP Act must not override the RTI Act. Otherwise, the mandate of transparency is hollowed out.

What are the consequences for accountability and corruption?

1. Loss of citizen monitoring: Citizens are the most effective monitors against corruption. When access to information is denied, this public monitoring mechanism is severely restricted, reducing day-to-day accountability.
2. Denial of essential records: The broadened label can block everyday documents. Even a citizen’s corrected marksheet may be refused. Sharing pension beneficiary data that exposed “ghost employees” and “ghost cards” would stop. Signed official orders could be withheld. Denial can exceed 90%.
3. Space for unfettered corruption: Treating data on ghost employees or corruption charges as personal conceals wrongdoing. Wrongdoing can continue unhindered because the documentary trail that enables scrutiny is no longer available.
4. Fear-driven denial by officials: Severe penalties under the DPDP framework and its override clause create risk aversion among Public Information Officers. With most records now digital, PIOs will default to denial to avoid mistakes, undermining transparency and accountability.
5. Limits of the “larger public interest” route: Section 8(2) technically permits disclosure in larger public interest. In practice, such orders are less than 1%. The test is difficult to apply, requiring an officer to weigh individual harm against public benefit. Reliance on this clause cannot safeguard accountability after the amendment.

Why is response muted, and what must change?

1. Apathy under a data-protection veneer: The amendment is framed as data protection. It looks harmless to many citizens. People also feel their own information should never be shared, even when it is relevant. This ego-driven view weakens support. Media attention is lower than during earlier RTI changes on Commissioners’ salaries and tenures..
2. Deep regression of rights: Sections 8(2) and 44(3) of the DPDP Bill are called a fundamental regression. They weaken the right to information and attack fundamental rights. The democratic promise of transparency is being compromised..
3. A focused action agenda: Four priorities matter now: widespread public discussion; demands for manifesto commitments to reverse the changes; strong public opinion with media support; and recognition that the issue warrants top national attention.
4. Democratic stakes: Silence will endanger freedom and democracy. Collective action by citizens and the media can secure a reversal. That is how the integrity of the RTI Act can be protected.

Question for practice:

Discuss how the DPDP Act’s amendment to RTI Section 8(1)(j) affects the definition of “personal information” and its consequences for transparency and anti-corruption.