Syllabus: GS2/Government Policy & Interventions; Statutory Body
Context
- Recent amendments to the RTI Act 2005, particularly to Section 8(1)(j) through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 are seen as unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the Act’s original intent.
| Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 – RTI Act (2005) recognized citizens as the rightful owners of government information and aimed to restore the concept of ‘swaraj’ (self-rule), ensuring transparency and accountability in governance. Key Features of the RTI Act – Right to Access Information: Any citizen of India can request information from a public authority, which is obligated to provide a response within 30 days (or 48 hours in cases concerning life and liberty). – Applicability: To all levels of government, including government-funded NGOs and institutions. – Public Information Officers (PIOs): Every government department must appoint PIOs to handle RTI requests and provide information. – Appeal Mechanism: If an applicant is not satisfied with the response, they can appeal to the First Appellate Authority and then to the Central or State Information Commission. – Penalties: Officials failing to provide information within the stipulated time or providing incorrect details can be fined up to ₹25,000. Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) – These are statutory bodies established under the RTI Act, 2005. – Central Information Commission (CIC): 1. Members: One CIC and up to 10 ICs, appointed by the President of India. – State Information Commissions (SICs): 1. Members: A State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) and up to 10 SICs, appointed by the Governor of respective states. Denial of Information Under RTI Act 2005 (Section 8 & Section 9) – Section 8(1)(a): National Security & Sovereignty – Section 8(1)(j): Personal Data & Privacy – Section 8(1)(i): Parliamentary Privilege & Cabinet Papers – Section 8(1)(d): Commercial Confidence & Trade Secrets – Section 8(1)(h): Ongoing Investigations & Law Enforcement Key Changes Through RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Tenure of Information Commissioners: It has been reduced to 3 years (earlier fixed at 5 years). – Salaries, Allowances, and Service Conditions: Determined by the Central Government (earlier, equivalent to Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, as in the original Act). – Rules under RTI Act (2022): Online filing of RTI applications encouraged through the RTI Online Portal. |
Understanding Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
- Original Provision: The RTI Act’s Section 8(1)(j) previously permitted the withholding of personal information if its publication resulted in an unjustified breach of privacy or had no connection to public activity or interest.
- Amended Provision: Provision under Section 8(1)(j) has been made simpler by the DPDP Act, 2023, which eliminates the public interest protection and declares that personal information is excluded from disclosure.
Key Concerns in Recent Amendment
- Impact on Public Scrutiny: Authorities might reject RTI requests for previously accessible material, such public officials’ caste certificates or educational credentials, by defining “personal information” broadly.
- It could hinder efforts to expose corruption and hold officials accountable.
- Existing Balance Between Privacy and Transparency: By requiring disclosures to take the public interest into account, the RTI Act already harmonizes the rights to privacy and information.
- The amendment disrupts this balance, making it redundant and unwarranted.
- Concerns Raised by Activists: Proponents of transparency contend that the change may restrict access to data that is necessary to reveal instances of power abuse and corruption.
- Because of its potential to undermine the RTI Act, civil society organizations have asked for the removal of this section.
Implications of the Amendment
- Impact on Transparency: Opponents contend that the change may make it more difficult to hold public officials responsible and reveal wrongdoing.
- Information that was previously available under the RTI Act, such public officials’ financial declarations or educational backgrounds, may now be suppressed.
- Balancing Privacy and Public Interest: By permitting disclosures in situations of greater public interest, the original clause achieved a balance between privacy and openness.
- Concerns over the weakening of accountability systems have been raised by the elimination of this precaution.
- Government’s Defense: Recent amendment is consistent with the Puttaswamy ruling of the Supreme Court, which upheld privacy as a fundamental right.
- Several officials contend that the modifications protect people’s right to privacy while preventing abuse of the RTI Act.
Reactions and Criticism
- Opposition and Civil Society: Opposition leaders and transparency advocates have criticized the amendment, calling it a step backward for democratic accountability.
- Concerns have been raised about the potential misuse of the amended provision to shield public officials from scrutiny.
- Legal and Policy Experts: Experts have highlighted the need for a nuanced approach that balances privacy with the public’s right to know.
- Suggestions include reintroducing the public interest safeguard to ensure accountability.
Conclusion
- The amendment to the RTI Act through the DPDP Act has raised valid concerns about its necessity and impact on transparency.
- While the government defends the changes as a measure to prevent misuse and harmonize privacy laws, critics argue that the RTI Act already achieves this balance effectively.
- To preserve the spirit of the RTI Act, it is imperative to reconsider and repeal the amendment.
| Daily Mains Practice Question [Q] How do you perceive the implications of the recent amendments to the RTI Act on transparency and accountability in governance, and do you think they strike an appropriate balance between privacy and public interest? |
Next article
Approach to Regulating AI in India