The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a mainstay of democracy in India. It ensures citizens can access government-held information. Recently, amendments linked to the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act drastically altered the RTI Act’s Section 8(1)(j). These changes affect transparency and public accountability. The new provisions create challenges for access to information and raise concerns over privacy and corruption.
Background of the RTI Act
The RTI Act is based on the principle that government information belongs to the people. Citizens elect representatives who oversee the bureaucracy. The Act’s default position is disclosure of information unless specific exemptions apply. One key exemption protects personal information to safeguard privacy and national interests. The original Section 8(1)(j) balanced disclosure with privacy by denying information only when it was a clear invasion of privacy and unrelated to public interest.
Original Section 8(1)(j) and Privacy
The original provision allowed denial of personal information only if it harmed privacy without public interest. It included a safeguard – if Parliament or State Legislatures could not be denied the information, neither could citizens. This ensured transparency and guided officials in distinguishing private from public matters. Privacy was recognised as evolving and judged case-by-case, respecting constitutional limits on decency and morality.
Impact of the 2025 Amendments
The DPDP Act shortened Section 8(1)(j) to six words, making it easier to deny information. The definition of personal information became ambiguous due to conflicting interpretations. One view sees person as an individual, while the DPDP Bill’s broader definition includes firms, associations, and the State. This broadness risks categorising most information as personal, enabling widespread denial. The DPDP Act’s overriding clause and heavy penalties create fear among Public Information Officers, encouraging denial over disclosure.
Threat to Transparency and Anti-Corruption
The amendments weaken public oversight, a vital tool against corruption. Denial of information affects citizen monitoring and exposes loopholes for corrupt practices. Routine documents like marksheets or pension data may be withheld as personal. Examples such as Rajasthan’s anti-ghost employee efforts may be undermined. The larger public interest clause remains but is rarely invoked due to its complexity, making it ineffective as a safeguard.
Public Response and Democratic Concerns
Despite serious implications, public and media response has been muted. The changes are seen as data protection measures, reducing perceived threat. Many support privacy for personal data, even if irrelevant to public interest. However, experts warn this is a fundamental democratic regression. Calls for media engagement, political accountability, and public mobilisation are urgent. Protecting the RTI Act’s integrity is essential for democracy and citizen rights.
Key Issues for Action
Four areas require focus – 1. Media and citizen awareness to stimulate debate. 2. Political parties must clarify positions in election manifestos. 3. Building strong public opinion against restrictive amendments. 4. Recognition that RTI rights are critical to democratic freedoms. Collective action can reverse harmful changes and safeguard transparency.
Questions for UPSC:
- Discuss in the light of Indian democracy how the Right to Information Act strengthens public accountability and transparency.
- Critically examine the challenges posed by data protection laws to the right to information in India with suitable examples.
- Explain the significance of balancing privacy and transparency in governance. How can this balance affect citizen trust and anti-corruption efforts?
- With suitable examples, discuss the role of citizen engagement and media in safeguarding fundamental rights in a democratic society.
