RTI Amendment: Right to Deny Information

Context

India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act faces a fundamental challenge with recent changes under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, leading to a shift towards a “right to deny information.” This development marks a critical moment for democratic accountability and transparency in governance.

Background: RTI Act and Its Democratic Role

The RTI Act, enacted in 2005, empowered citizens by affirming that government-held information belongs to the people. It was celebrated as a vital instrument to expose corruption, inefficiency, and arbitrariness in governance. Its foundational ethos asserted citizens as the owners—not mere petitioners—of public information.

The Heart of the Issue: Section 8(1)(j) and Its Truncation

• Section 8(1)(j) originally balanced the right to transparency against the need for personal privacy. It permitted denial of information only if it lacked any connection to public activity or represented an unwarranted invasion of privacy, except when a larger public interest was at stake. Importantly, this provision mandated that information not withheld from Parliament or State legislatures could not be denied to citizens. This section was grounded in evolving judicial interpretations, such as those in the landmark Puttaswamy case.
• With the DPDP Act, the language of Section 8(1)(j) has been drastically reduced to just six words, making it vague. The nuanced criteria previously guiding denials have vanished, giving Public Information Officers (PIOs) unchecked power to refuse requests.

Expanding the Definition of ‘Personal Information’

• Under the RTI Act, “person” generally refers to individual human beings. In contrast, the DPDP defines “person” more broadly—encompassing individuals, companies, firms, associations, Hindu undivided families, and even government entities. This expansive definition means almost any government-held data can be classified as “personal information,” laying the groundwork for blanket denials.
• Moreover, the DPDP introduces an overriding clause that supersedes other laws, and imposes hefty penalties (up to ₹250 crore) for non-compliance. This encourages risk-averse behavior in PIOs, making them more likely to reject RTI requests without proper scrutiny.

Implications for Transparency and Accountability

• The citizen’s role as a watchdog is diminished, weakening a core pillar of democratic governance.
• Essential documents—corrected marksheets, pension beneficiary lists, or employment records—can now be refused. For instance, Rajasthan’s earlier success in eliminating “ghost employees” using such data will now be impossible.
• Corruption-related records may be shielded via the “personal information” label, undermining anti-corruption efforts.
• The provision to disclose information in larger public interest (Section 8(2)) is rarely applied, with less than 1% cases leveraging this safeguard.

Why Is Public Outrage Muted?

• The changes are presented as pro-privacy reforms, which appear benign. Many people focus on protecting individual data, unintentionally overlooking how transparency serves collective interests.
• Media response has been subdued. Unlike past RTI amendments—such as those affecting Information Commissioner tenure, which sparked protests—current changes have generated minimal discussion.
• There is a lack of awareness about the scale and impact of the amendments, leading to apathy and silence even among civil society stakeholders.

Addressing the Crisis: What Must Be Done

• Media engagement: Vigorous discussion in print, digital, and regional channels must spotlight the erosion of transparency.
• Political accountability: Citizens should demand political parties include the reversal of these amendments in their manifestos.
• Civil society activism: Continuous efforts are needed to build public opinion on the democratic regression triggered by these changes.
• Recognizing the threat: The transformation of RTI from a right to know into a right to deny must be treated with urgency—as seriously as threats to other fundamental rights.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

The RTI Act is more than mere legislation; it represents a democratic principle of citizen ownership over government-held data. The DPDP Act’s amendment risks transforming this ethos into secrecy and denial, imperiling both transparency and accountability. Unless citizens, media, and political actors mobilize for reversal and restoration, a cornerstone of India’s democracy stands weakened.

Source: The Hindu

Download as PDF