The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, marked a watershed moment in Indian governance by empowering citizens with the right to seek information from public authorities. Its primary objective was to enhance transparency, curb corruption, and promote accountability within the government. By enabling access to government records, the RTI Act fostered a culture of openness, allowing citizens to question and scrutinise the actions of public officials.
However, with the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, new challenges have emerged. The DPDP Act, with its focus on safeguarding personal data and privacy, has raised significant concerns regarding its potential impact on the right to information. Critics argue that the new law may inadvertently dilute the core objectives of the RTI Act, particularly regarding the accessibility of information related to public servants and government officials.
This article examines the interplay between the RTI Act and the DPDP Act, highlighting the potential conflicts and limitations that arise from the latter.
Key Features of RTI Act, 2005 vs. DPDP Act, 2023
The Right to Information Act, 2005, was designed to grant citizens unrestricted access to information held by public authorities, barring specific exceptions related to national security, personal privacy, and strategic interests. The underlying philosophy of the RTI Act was that the government is an open book, and citizens have the right to inspect its pages. The law mandated that information should be shared unless explicitly exempted under the Act.
In contrast, the DPDP Act, 2023, emphasises the protection of personal data and the preservation of individual privacy. It aims to regulate the collection, processing, storage, and disclosure of data. While this is crucial in the digital age, where data misuse is rampant, the DPDP Act’s broader definitions of personal data and privacy have raised concerns that it may be used as a pretext to deny legitimate requests for public information.
Dilution of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act
One of the most significant areas of concern is the dilution of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure if it does not relate to public activity or interest. While the RTI Act originally aimed to limit personal data protection only to the extent necessary, the DPDP Act’s enhanced focus on privacy significantly broadens this exemption.
With the new provisions, there is a fear that authorities might interpret personal data too broadly, thereby withholding critical information related to public servants under the guise of privacy. This could undermine the public’s right to know about the actions and accountability of those in power.
Excessive Power to the Government
The DPDP Act grants the central government significant authority over data classification and protection. Critics argue that this excessive power could be exploited to restrict access to information that is vital for public scrutiny. By categorising more data as personal, the government might limit the scope of RTI applications, particularly those that seek information about bureaucratic actions or decisions.
Shielding Bureaucrats and Public Officials
Another major critique of the DPDP Act is its potential to shield bureaucrats and public officials from accountability. The RTI Act played a pivotal role in uncovering corruption and inefficiency by allowing access to official records. However, under the DPDP Act, the increased protection of personal data might be leveraged to block information related to the professional conduct of government employees. This, in turn, could reduce the transparency that the RTI Act sought to establish.
Impact on Whistleblowers and Investigative Journalism
One of the RTI Act’s greatest strengths was its facilitation of whistleblowing and investigative journalism. Many landmark cases of corruption and malpractice were exposed through information obtained via RTI requests. With the DPDP Act’s stringent data protection norms, journalists and activists fear that accessing information related to public officials might become increasingly difficult. This could hamper journalistic investigations and reduce the effectiveness of public interest reporting.
Contradiction in Legislative Intent
The RTI Act and the DPDP Act reflect two essential but contrasting legislative intents. While the former emphasises transparency, the latter prioritises privacy. In a democratic society, both are vital; however, the real challenge lies in striking a balance between these rights without one overshadowing the other. The current structure of the DPDP Act favours privacy to the extent that it could compromise the transparency mandated by the RTI Act. This contradiction needs to be addressed through judicial interpretation or legislative amendment to maintain the integrity of both acts.
Relevance in Today’s Society
In an era dominated by digital interactions, data privacy has become increasingly crucial. Yet, transparency and accountability remain the cornerstones of democracy. The coexistence of the RTI Act and the DPDP Act necessitates a nuanced approach that balances privacy protection with the public’s right to know. Policymakers need to draw a clear line between safeguarding personal information and concealing government actions under the pretence of data protection.
Conclusion
The RTI Act, 2005, and the DPDP Act, 2023, represent two sides of the same coin — the need for transparency and the right to privacy. As digital governance becomes more pervasive, striking a balance between these two critical aspects is paramount. While data protection is undeniably important, it should not become an excuse to erode citizens’ rights to information. Ensuring accountability while safeguarding personal privacy requires a judicious approach to legislation, keeping democratic principles at the forefront.