Why in the News?
The Right to Information (RTI) Act has clearly helped make those in power more accountable in India. However, in recent years, there have been efforts to weaken some of its important provisions, even though the Act — a major reform — was passed 20 years ago.
What is the role of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in promoting transparency?
- Balances Privacy and Public Interest: Section 8(1)(j) permits denial of personal information only if it has no relationship to public activity or interest or causes an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Eg: An officer’s medical records may be withheld, but details of their salary or qualifications can be disclosed if it serves public interest.
- Includes a Public Interest Override: Even if information is personal, it must be disclosed if larger public interest is involved. Eg: A bureaucrat’s caste certificate was disclosed in public interest when he was accused of using a fake caste certificate to secure a reserved post.
- Enhances Accountability of Public Officials: Prevents misuse of power by allowing scrutiny of officials’ actions, qualifications, and benefits. Eg: RTI queries have uncovered cases of bogus educational degrees among elected representatives and civil servants.
- Empowers Citizens to Seek Information: It strengthens democratic participation by giving citizens access to relevant information on public functionaries. Eg: Citizens have used RTI to access asset declarations of elected representatives and government officers.
- Prevents Blanket Denial of Information: Ensures that authorities cannot reject RTI requests merely by labeling the information as ‘personal’; they must justify how it affects privacy and weigh it against public interest. Eg: Information about government employees’ attendance records or transfers can be accessed to detect nepotism or irregularities.
Why does Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 worry transparency advocates?
- Removes Public Interest Safeguard: Section 44(3) amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by eliminating the provision that allowed disclosure of personal information in public interest. Eg: A fake caste certificate case could now be shielded from scrutiny as the information might be denied without evaluating public interest.
- Enables Blanket Denial Through Vague Definition: The term “personal information” is broad and undefined, enabling authorities to classify many types of public-relevant data as private. Eg: Details like educational qualifications or property disclosures of public servants could be denied under the label of “personal”.
- Undermines RTI as a Transparency Tool: It weakens the RTI Act’s core intent by restricting access to information that previously helped expose corruption and misconduct. Eg: RTI requests that once revealed official misconduct or nepotism in postings may now be rejected citing privacy under the DPDP Act.
How does the DPDP amendment deviate from the intent of the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment?
- Ignores the Balancing Principle of Privacy and Transparency: The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) upheld the right to privacy but emphasized that it must be balanced with other fundamental rights, including the right to information and public interest. Eg: The DPDP amendment removes the RTI Act’s public interest test, allowing personal information to be withheld even when it reveals corruption or fraud.
- Undermines Democratic Accountability: The judgment did not suggest overriding transparency laws like RTI but stressed minimum and necessary restrictions on information access. Eg: Instead of proportionate safeguards, the DPDP Act allows authorities to blanket-deny RTI requests without assessing public relevance.
- Distorts the Spirit of “Informed Citizenry”: Puttaswamy emphasized that transparency is essential for democracy, and privacy cannot be used to shield public officials from scrutiny. Eg: Information such as public officials’ property details or caste certificates may now be refused, limiting citizens’ ability to hold them accountable.
What information could now be denied under the amended RTI provisions as ‘personal’?
|
Way forward:
- Restore Public Interest Safeguard: Amend the DPDP Act to reinstate the public interest clause from Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, ensuring transparency is not overridden by vague privacy claims.
- Define ‘Personal Information’ Clearly: Provide a narrow and precise definition of “personal information” to prevent misuse and ensure critical public accountability data remains accessible.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2020] “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.
Linkage: The discussion from 2020 highlights the ongoing attention on potential changes to the RTI Act. It shows that the issue of amending the RTI Act and its effects has been a concern for some time.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
