Mentor’s Comment

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was once celebrated as a revolutionary step in India’s democratic journey, giving citizens a direct tool to hold the State accountable. But recent amendments through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 have been termed a “fundamental regression of democracy.” By transforming RTI into a potential “Right to Deny Information (RDI),” the amendments threaten transparency, accountability, and the fight against corruption. This article unpacks the gravity of these changes, their implications for governance, and why the muted public response is a cause for deep concern.

Introduction

The RTI Act (2005) rests on the principle that in a democracy, government-held information belongs to the people. It has empowered ordinary citizens to expose corruption, inefficiency, and arbitrariness in governance. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, originally a balanced safeguard to protect personal privacy, has now been drastically curtailed by the DPDP Act, reducing it to six words. This shift fundamentally alters the spirit of transparency, tilting the Act from being a “Right to Know” towards a “Right to Deny.”

Why is this in the news?

For the first time since its enactment, the RTI Act faces a drastic truncation of one of its most crucial provisions. Section 8(1)(j), which earlier struck a delicate balance between privacy and transparency, has now been reduced in length and scope, effectively allowing authorities to deny a vast range of information. The problem is massive, nearly 90% of RTI requests could now be rejected as “personal information.” Yet, unlike earlier RTI amendments that triggered massive public protests, the current change has seen notable public and media apathy, making this a silent but severe assault on India’s democratic ethos.

How has the original Section 8(1)(j) changed?

1. Balanced safeguard: Earlier, information could be denied only if it had no connection to public activity or was an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest was served.
2. Acid test provision: Any information that could not be denied to Parliament or State legislatures could not be denied to citizens.
3. Case-by-case privacy: Privacy, as acknowledged in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, was contextual and evolving, requiring nuanced interpretation.
4. New truncated version: Reduced to just six words, making it vague and easier for Public Information Officers (PIOs) to deny information.

What is the ambiguity around ‘personal information’?

1. Natural person view: “Person” means a normal human being.
2. DPDP definition: Expansive—includes companies, firms, associations, Hindu undivided families, and even the State.
3. Result: Almost all government-held information can be linked to some “person,” enabling blanket denials.
4. Overriding clause: DPDP Act overrides all other laws, with penalties up to ₹250 crore for violations, making PIOs fearful and risk-averse.

How does this impact transparency and anti-corruption efforts?

1. Loss of citizen monitoring: Citizens as watchdogs against corruption lose power. Other mechanisms like vigilance bodies or Lokpal have been ineffective.
2. Denial of essential documents: Even mundane details, like corrected marksheets or pension beneficiary lists, can be refused. Rajasthan’s earlier use of such data to weed out “ghost employees” will now be impossible.
3. Scope for corruption: By labeling corruption-related details as “personal information,” the law makes it easier to hide wrongdoing.
4. Larger public interest clause weakens: Though Section 8(2) allows disclosure in larger public interest, it is rarely applied (<1% of cases).

Why is there limited public outrage?

1. Guise of data protection: Amendments are packaged under “privacy,” which appears benign or even desirable.
2. Ego-driven perception: People instinctively think their information should remain private, ignoring how transparency aids collective accountability.
3. Muted media response: Compared to earlier protests (e.g., changes to Information Commissioner tenure and salaries), public discussion is minimal.

What needs to be done?

1. Media engagement: Widespread discussion in print, digital, and regional media.
2. Political accountability: Citizens must push parties to commit reversal of amendments in manifestos.
3. Public opinion building: Civil society must highlight the democratic regression caused.
4. Recognising gravity: The assault on RTI must be treated as seriously as threats to any other fundamental right.

Conclusion

The RTI Act, 2005  is not just a legal framework but a democratic ethos, where citizens are owners, not petitioners, of government-held information. The DPDP Act’s amendment transforms this ethos into an ethos of denial, threatening both transparency and accountability. Unless citizens, media, and political actors mobilise to resist, India risks losing one of its most powerful democratic tools.