RTI Amendment via DPDP Act, 2023- Explained Pointwise

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, hailed as a revolutionary step towards transparency and accountability in governance, is now facing a significant dilution through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. This amendment alters Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, effectively removing the public interest override and restricting access to all “personal information”.

As the minister warns, this will have a “devastating effect on the transparency law”. Over 30 civil society groups, backed by 130 opposition MPs, have raised alarm. This issue underlines the delicate balance between the right to privacy (as upheld in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) and right to information—both derived from Article 21 of the Constitution.

What is Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005?

Objective: The RTI Act was enacted to enhance transparency and accountability in government operations by empowering citizens to access information held by public authorities.

Coverage: The Act extends to all public authorities, including central and state government bodies, ministries, and institutions significantly financed by the government.

Access to Information: Under this law, citizens can seek information in the form of records, documents, reports, and data from public authorities, thereby promoting openness in governance.

Exemptions: Certain categories of information are exempt from disclosure—particularly those that could jeopardize national security, violate confidentiality, or interfere with active investigations.

Response Timeline: Authorities must furnish the requested information within 30 days. In specific situations, this timeline may be extended up to 45 days.

Penal Provisions: Officials who unjustifiably deny information or provide misleading details may face penalties as per the provisions of the Act.

What is the significance of RTI Act, 2005 across Sectors?

1. Strengthening Governance and Accountability: As per Central Information Commission reports over 3 crore RTI applications have been filed since 2005. Exposed several scams: Adarsh Housing Scam, Vyapam, and Ration distribution irregularities through social audits. Ensures accountability of public servants through access to information like educational qualifications, salary records, and property declarations. Case Study: Social audits under RTI helped expose ration distribution fraud in various states like Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh.

2. Strengthening Democratic Participation: RTI promotes citizen-led oversight and informed public discourse. Ensures parity of information access between citizens and legislators. E.g. Over 13 lakh RTIs filed annually (CIC 2022-23).

3. Social Justice and Welfare Delivery: RTI has been used extensively to obtain information related to welfare schemes (MGNREGA, PDS, pensions, etc.), empowering marginalized communities. Case Study: In Madhya Pradesh, activists used RTI to expose ghost beneficiaries in the Public Distribution System (PDS).

4. Judiciary and Executive Oversight: RTI flows from Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression). In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) – held that the office of the CJI falls under RTI.

5. Environmental and Public Health: RTIs have exposed issues in environmental clearances, pollution data, and COVID-19 relief fund utilization.

What are the issues with Recent Amendment (Section 44(3) of DPDP Act, 2023)?

1. Deletion of Public Interest Clause: Section 8(1)(j) originally allowed disclosure of personal information if “larger public interest justifies it.” The DPDP Act removes this proviso, creating a blanket ban on disclosure of all personal information.

2. Against the Spirit of Puttaswamy Judgment: The K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment upheld the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right. However, it also stated that “privacy and transparency are not mutually exclusive but complementary.” owhere did the judgment recommend amending the RTI Act.

3. Weakening Institutional Transparency: The amendment violates the RTI Act’s principle that no information denied to Parliament shall be denied to a citizen. Deletion of this proviso affects all of Section 8(1) and weakens the spirit of democratic oversight.

4. Misuse of “Personal Information” Definition: The DPDP Act vaguely defines “personal information”, enabling authorities to deny access to previously public records under the garb of privacy. The DPDP Act defines personal information vaguely, potentially covering, educational qualifications, Disciplinary actions, Property records and Minutes of public meetings. E.g. Fake caste certificate cases or qualification disputes (e.g., Maharashtra bureaucrat case) may go unverified.

5. Procedural and Legislative Bypass: Amendment was passed through a side clause (Section 44(3)) without detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

6. Judicial Responses: Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India (2019), delays in appointments to Commissions defeat the purpose of RTI. Despite petitions, no rollback of the 2019 amendments yet.

7. Civil Society Pushback: NCPRI, Article 21 Trust, PUCL, SFLC India have vocally opposed the amendment. Activists like Anjali Bhardwaj and Nikhil Dey have warned that this will cripple social audits and verification of public service delivery.

What are the current challenges to the RTI Framework and its impact across different sectors?

Impact Across Sectors

What should be the Way Forward?

1. Repeal or Revise the RTI-DPDP Amendment: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act should be repealed. Retain the “public interest” safeguard in Section 8(1)(j). Restore fixed tenure and pay parity for CIC/SICs. Implement recommendations of 2nd ARC and Law Commission.

2. Define ‘Personal Information’ Clearly: Adopt standards based on OECD Privacy Guidelines, with narrow definitions and public interest exceptions.

3. Uphold Proportionality Doctrine: Follow B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2020) which applied proportionality in administrative actions.

4. Ensure Parliamentary Scrutiny: Future amendments to transparency laws must be passed after detailed debates and standing committee reviews.

5. Strengthen Information Commissions: Fill vacancies, increase budget allocation. Ensure functional autonomy and security of tenure. E.g. As per PRS India, the Central Information Commission received only ₹37 crore in Budget 2023-24 — insufficient for 2 lakh+ pending cases.

6. Strengthen the CIC: Empower CIC with enforcement powers, as recommended by the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC).

7. Balance Privacy and Transparency: Formulate rules under DPDP Act ensuring narrow and specific definition of “personal information.” Establish public interest tests through an independent authority.

8. Promote Proactive Disclosure: Strengthen Section 4 of RTI Act — suo motu disclosures by public authorities.

9. Reports and Recommendations

10. Comparative Global Models

 Conclusion

The RTI Act is not just a legal instrument, but a democratic lifeline that empowers citizens to hold the State accountable. As Mr. M.M. Ansari rightly notes, the current provisions were already “very balanced”, safeguarding privacy while ensuring transparency. The amendment through the DPDP Act erodes this balance, endangering public accountability. As India celebrates 20 years of RTI, the need is not to weaken but to deepen transparency, keeping intact the spirit of participatory democracy