Right to Information

The recent amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, via the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, have sparked significant debate regarding the balance between privacy rights and public transparency. Critics argue that these amendments, particularly the removal of the public interest exception for disclosing personal data, could undermine the transparency and accountability that the RTI Act was meant to promote.

RTI Act, 2005: A Quick Recap

The RTI Act, 2005, was a landmark legislation that empowered citizens to access government-held information, promoting transparency and accountability. Its key features included:

• Right to Access Information: Citizens could request information from public authorities, which were required to respond within 30 days.

• Appeal Mechanism: Applicants could appeal decisions through a multi-tier process, including the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commissions (SICs).

• Penalties: Public authorities failing to provide timely information could face fines up to ₹25,000.

Section 8(1)(j): Privacy and Public Interest Balance

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had originally provided a balance between privacy rights and public interest by allowing the withholding of personal information if its disclosure could lead to an unjustified breach of privacy and was unrelated to public interest. However, the DPDP Act, 2023 amended this provision by removing the public interest exception, which effectively made personal data exempt from disclosure.

Key Concerns of the Amendment

1. Impact on Public Scrutiny

The major concern is that the amendment will make it easier for public officials to shield their personal information (such as caste certificates, educational qualifications, and financial disclosures) from public scrutiny. These are crucial areas for ensuring accountability and transparency, especially in exposing corruption and power abuse.

• Potential for Secrecy: By broadly defining "personal information" and removing the public interest safeguard, the amendment could lead to withholding information that was previously accessible, such as details about a public official's financial declarations or academic credentials.

2. Weakening Accountability

• Reduced Access to Information: Without the public interest exception, certain crucial data related to public officials' backgrounds, qualifications, and assets might not be disclosed, hindering efforts to hold them accountable.

• Risk of Misuse: Critics argue that the new provision could be exploited to shield officials from scrutiny, thereby undermining one of the key objectives of the RTI Act — to ensure government accountability.

3. Public Interest vs. Privacy

• Balanced Approach Under RTI: Prior to the amendment, the RTI Act struck a balance by permitting the withholding of personal information only when it posed an unjustified privacy risk and wasn’t in public interest.

• The removal of the public interest exception now tips the balance too far toward privacy, potentially reducing transparency even when disclosing information would serve the public good (e.g., exposing corruption or verifying public officials’ credentials).

4. Judicial and Civil Society Opposition

• Puttaswamy Judgment: Supporters of the amendment argue that it aligns with the Puttaswamy ruling, where the Supreme Court upheld privacy as a fundamental right. However, the argument that the RTI Act already balances privacy and transparency is valid. The court’s ruling didn’t negate the need for public accountability.

• Civil Society Concerns: Activists and civil society groups have strongly opposed the amendment, warning that it could lead to less transparency, a backslide for democracy, and a reduction in the public’s ability to challenge power abuses.

5. Potential for Erosion of Trust

• Government’s Defense: The government defends the amendment, suggesting that it will prevent the misuse of the RTI Act by individuals seeking personal data unrelated to public matters.

• Public Trust: However, removing the public interest safeguard may erode public trust in the RTI Act as a tool for transparency and accountability. If citizens are unable to access important data that can reveal wrongdoing, it may weaken democratic governance.

Implications of the Amendment

1. Reduced Access to Official Data: Information regarding public officials' financial declarations, educational backgrounds, and other personal data that is vital for transparency may no longer be available.

2. Exemptions to Accountability: Key information that was once accessible for public scrutiny could be kept hidden under the guise of privacy, making it difficult to hold public authorities accountable for their actions.

3. Imbalance in Privacy vs. Transparency: While privacy is a crucial right, the RTI Act’s purpose was to ensure citizens' right to know how their government functions, which includes scrutiny of officials' conduct.

Possible Solutions and Suggestions

• Reintroducing the Public Interest Safeguard: One possible solution could be to reintroduce the public interest exception in the provision, ensuring that privacy rights are protected, but transparency is not compromised.

• Clearer Definitions: The provision could be amended to have clearer definitions of what constitutes personal information and how public interest will be weighed in these situations.

• Consultation with Stakeholders: The government could engage in discussions with transparency advocates, legal experts, and civil society organizations to find a middle ground that respects privacy while promoting government accountability.

Conclusion

The amendments to the RTI Act via the DPDP Act have raised serious concerns about the future of public scrutiny in India. While the government argues that these changes protect individual privacy and prevent misuse, critics warn that it could undermine transparency, weaken accountability, and shield corrupt officials. To preserve the spirit of the RTI Act — which aims to make government more transparent, accountable, and responsive — a reconsideration of the amendment is necessary. The balance between privacy and public interest must be maintained to ensure that the right to know continues to be a tool for democratic accountability.