Introduction
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, has been a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, empowering citizens to seek accountability from the state. Over the past two decades, it has emerged as one of the most potent tools for transparency, participatory governance, and administrative reform. However, the recent amendment to the RTI Act through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, has triggered widespread concern among activists, legal experts, and civil society organizations. The core criticism revolves around the dilution of the public interest safeguard that was central to Section 8(1)(j) of the original RTI Act.
Background: Evolution and Importance of the RTI Act
Genesis of RTI in India
- Born out of grassroots activism, especially the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) movement in Rajasthan.
- RTI was institutionalized through the RTI Act, 2005, after extensive consultation and demands for accountability in governance.
- It is regarded as a landmark legislation in Indian democracy which has:
- Enhanced accountability and transparency in governance.
- Empowered citizens to seek information from public authorities.
- Over the past two decades, RTI has made governance more participatory and answerable to the public.
- As per the 2nd ARC report, ‘RTI is the master key for good governance’
Features of the RTI Act
- Section 3: Grants every citizen the right to information from public authorities.
- Section 6: Simplifies the process of requesting information.
- Section 8: Lists exemptions under which information can be denied.
- Section 8(1)(j): Permits withholding of personal information unless:
- It has a bearing on public interest.
- It is accessible to Parliament or State Legislature.
- ●Section 19: Provides for a two-tier appellate mechanism:
- First appeal to the senior officer in the public authority.
- Second appeal to the Central or State Information Commission.
Role in Strengthening Democracy
- Promotes transparency, participatory governance, and citizen empowerment.
- Has been instrumental in exposing corruption (e.g., Commonwealth Games, Adarsh Scam, MNREGA anomalies).
- The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission called RTI the “master key to good governance.”
What Constitutes “Information”? (Section 2(f))
Includes any material in any form:
- Records, Documents, Memos, Emails
- Opinions, Advice, Press Releases, Circulars
- Orders, Logbooks, Contracts, Reports
- Data, Samples, Electronic material
Includes information held by private bodies if accessible by public authorities.
Access to File Notings
- Satyapal v. CPIO TCIL case: Citizens have the right to access file notings, as note sheets are part of the complete file.
Exempted Information (Sections 8 & 9)
- Section 8(1) & 9: Lists information exempt from disclosure.
- Section 8(2): Disclosure allowed if public interest outweighs harm.
- Section 8(3): Most exemptions lapse after 20 years, except specific cases.
Key Exemptions:
- National Security & Sovereignty
- Parliamentary and Legislative Privilege
- Cabinet Papers & Ministerial Discussions
Exempted Organizations (Section 24 & Schedule 2)
Certain security and intelligence agencies are exempt unless:
- Corruption or human rights violations are involved.
Examples:
- Central Intelligence Bureau (IB)
- Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)
- Directorate of Enforcement
- National Technical Research Organization
- CRPF, BSF, NSG
Impact of Data Protection Bill, 2023
- Personal information fully exempted from RTI disclosures.
- Aims to protect citizen privacy and prioritize data protection.
How to File an RTI Application
- Write an Application: State clearly the information sought.
- Attach Fee Receipt: As evidence of application fee payment.
- Submit to PIO/APIO: Concerned department’s designated officer.
Essentials of RTI Applications
- No prescribed format; plain paper allowed.
- Language: Hindi, English, or local language.
- Fees: Nominal and affordable.
- Timeline: Information must be provided within 30 days.
Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023
Origins in the Puttaswamy Judgment (2017)
- In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Court emphasized the need for a data protection regime, balancing privacy and information access.
Objectives of the DPDP Act
- Protect individuals’ digital personal data.
- Define responsibilities of data fiduciaries and rights of data principals.
- Envision a Data Protection Board to address violations.
The Amendment Controversy: Section 44(3) of DPDP Act
What Does the Amendment Say?
- Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
- Removes the “larger public interest” clause.
- States that any personal information is exempt from disclosure—irrespective of public interest or impact on governance.
What Did Section 8(1)(j) Originally Provide?
- Allowed denial of personal information only when:
- It had no connection to public activity or interest.
- Its disclosure caused an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
- Safeguard: If disclosure was justified in the public interest, information could be shared.
- E.g., educational qualifications, caste certificates of public officials, declaration of assets, etc.
Legal and Judicial Implications
Puttaswamy vs. Transparency
- The Puttaswamy verdict emphasized proportionality and balancing of rights.
- It did not mandate an override of transparency laws like RTI.
- Hence, the current amendment appears contrary to the spirit of the judgment.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC (2012)
- The Supreme Court held that personal information of public servants could be denied unless there was an overriding public interest.
- Established the balance between individual privacy and public accountability.
Justice A.P. Shah Committee Report (2012)
- Recommended that privacy legislation should not curtail the RTI regime.
- Suggested a harmonious construction between transparency and data protection.
Socio-Political and Governance Impact
A Threat to Transparency
- The amendment curtails citizen access to critical data under the garb of privacy.
- Information like caste certificates, academic degrees, or income declarations of public officials may now be denied.
Undermining Past Precedents
- Over the years, numerous decisions by the Central and State Information Commissions relied on public interest to allow disclosures.
- These are now rendered null and void due to the absence of discretion in Section 44(3).
Potential for Misuse
- Authorities can now deny legitimate requests under the pretext of protecting “personal information,” the definition of which remains ambiguous.
- May shield corruption, nepotism, or abuse of public office from scrutiny.
Government’s Justification
Statements from the Government
- Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw claimed the amendment was to “prevent misuse” of RTI and harmonize it with privacy rights.
- Assured that certain data like salaries of officials would still be accessible.
Critique of the Justification
- The original RTI Act already had safeguards for privacy.
- The claim of preventing misuse is vague and unsubstantiated.
- The harmonization argument is flawed, as the RTI Act already allowed denial of data when disclosure was unwarranted.
Views from Civil Society and Experts
Transparency Activists’ Concerns
- View the amendment as an “assault on RTI”.
- Warn of the erosion of two decades of transparency activism.
- Demand that the provision be repealed or revised via standalone legislation and open parliamentary debate.
Editorial & Legal Opinions
- Multiple editorials (like the one in The Hindu, April 15, 2025) termed the amendment unnecessary and unwarranted.
- Legal scholars argue that amending a transparency law through an unrelated privacy bill is legally improper and constitutionally suspect.
Key Cases & Real-World Examples
Fake Caste Certificate Case
- A high-profile case involved a bureaucrat allegedly using a fake caste certificate.
- Under the previous law, such documents could be accessed under RTI in public interest.
- Under the amended regime, such disclosures may now be denied as personal information.
Degrees of Public Officials
- Political leaders’ educational qualifications—critical to public discourse and eligibility—may no longer be disclosed.
Constitutional and Ethical Considerations
Constitutional Balance
- Article 19(1)(a): Right to freedom of speech includes the right to know.
- Article 21: Right to privacy.
- The Constitution demands a harmonious balance, not an outright preference for one right over another.
Ethical Accountability
- Public servants operate in positions of power funded by taxpayer money.
- Their conduct, qualifications, and integrity must be open to public scrutiny.
Effectiveness of the RTI Act
- Empowering Legislation: RTI Act enables people to demand information and hold the government accountable.
- Access to Basic Entitlements: Most RTI applications are about ration cards, pensions, education, healthcare, etc.
- Uncovering Scams: RTI has helped expose scams like Adarsh, Commonwealth Games, Vyapam.
- Accountability for Human Rights Violations: RTI has played a role in exposing violations and ensuring redress.
Public Adoption and Challenges
- Still Effective: Despite attempts to dilute it, RTI remains effective due to its grassroots origins.
- Lack of Awareness: Awareness and adoption remain low, limiting its full potential.
- Perception Gap: People must see RTI as their own tool to realize its full democratic mandate.
Barriers in Application Process
- State-Specific Rules: States like Odisha or High Courts have specific formats that complicate the process.
- Word Limit Restrictions: Some states limit RTI applications to 150 words, creating difficulties for laypersons.
Transparency and Denial of Information
- Shifting Responsibility: Officers often say the info isn’t with them, pushing the burden on applicants.
- Illegal Denials: Many rejections do not cite legal grounds or relevant sections of the Act.
Institutional Resistance
- Resistance Since Inception: Even 10 months after enactment, amendments were attempted to dilute it.
- Lack of Data Collection: During COVID-19, the government denied having data on deaths and migrant workers.
- 2021 Census Delay: The indefinite delay in census restricts access to key datasets.
- Efforts to Limit Access: Attempts have been made to exclude file notings, political parties, etc., from RTI purview.
Dilution of the Law
- 2019 Amendment: Allowed government to control tenure and service conditions of Information Commissioners.
- Data Protection Bill: Will likely exempt all personal data from RTI, affecting transparency.
Institutional Weaknesses
- Vacancies in Commissions: Huge backlogs due to unfilled posts in Information Commissions.
- Threats to RTI Users: Despite attacks and murders of users, the Act continues to be widely used.
Impact of the Data Protection Bill
- Exemption of Personal Info: All personal data may be blocked from RTI purview under the Bill.
- Undermining Social Audits: Public distribution data (names, entitlements, etc.) essential for audits may be blocked.
- Weakened Proactive Disclosures: The foundational feature of public disclosure under RTI could be lost.
Challenges in RTI Implementation
Low Public Awareness
- Less awareness among women and rural population.
- Only 48% of dissatisfied applicants are aware of the appeal process (Section 18).
Application Submission Issues
- No mandatory user guides (Section 26) in many departments.
- Lack of standard forms across states.
- Inconvenient submission (e.g., no online/email options).
- Limited fee payment channels.
Poor Information Quality
- Inadequate training of PIOs.
- Lack of effective record inspection facilities.
Record Management Issues
- Absence of proper guidelines and retrieval systems delays responses.
Infrastructure Constraints
- Lack of resources at Block or Panchayat level.
Lack of Motivation in PIOs
- No incentives or support for proactive RTI implementation.
Recommendations by the 2nd ARC
- Allow Multiple Payment Methods: e.g., postal orders.
- Harmonize State Rules: Align fee structures with central rules.
- Single Window Agency: At district level for RTI processing.
- Identify Subordinate Public Authorities: Recognize grassroots decision-making offices.
- Include NGOs: NGOs with ≥ ₹1 crore government funding under RTI.
- Establish Grievance Redressal Mechanisms: For delays, corruption, and inefficiency.
- Address Frivolous Applications: Permit refusal of vexatious requests with appellate authority’s approval (Amend Section 7(10)).
The Path Ahead: Recommendations
Repeal or Revisit Section 44(3)
- Restore the original safeguards under Section 8(1)(j).
- Reintroduce the public interest override.
Enact Data Protection via Standalone Framework
- Keep RTI and data protection as separate but complementary frameworks.
- Avoid amending one law via provisions in another unrelated legislation.
Transparent Consultation
- Future reforms should be preceded by public consultation and parliamentary debate.
- Include inputs from transparency activists, legal experts, media, and data protection bodies.
Conclusion
The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been a transformative law in India’s democratic journey. Its amendment via the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, especially through Section 44(3), poses a serious threat to the regime of accountability and transparency. By removing the public interest test, the amendment creates a shield of secrecy under the guise of privacy. The Constitution mandates a balance between competing rights—not the elevation of one at the cost of the other. The government must heed the voices of civil society, uphold constitutional morality, and rescind this regressive amendment to protect the soul of democratic governance.
For more such articles, visit us.
For Free Daily and Monthly Current Affairs, Click here.
Join out UPSC Foundation Batch, Today.