Reassessing RTI in the Era of Data Privacy

Concerning the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005

Objective: It was created to enhance transparency in government operations by granting citizens the ability to obtain information from public entities.

Scope: The Act pertains to public authorities, encompassing government departments, ministries, and entities that receive significant government funding.

Publicly Accessible Information: Citizens possess the right to seek information from governmental agencies. This encompasses the right to obtain records, documents, and additional information.

Exclusions: Data that could jeopardize national security, violate confidentiality, or damage the integrity of current investigations.

Response Timeframe: Public agencies must reply to information requests within 30 days. In some instances, this timeframe may be lengthened to 45 days.

Sanctions: The legislation stipulates penalties for authorities who fail to disclose information without justifiable reason or who present inaccurate information.

Revision Information

Revised Provision: Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act prevented the sharing of personal information unless such disclosure benefited a greater public interest. This measure permitted access to personal information when necessary for social responsibility and openness, such as validating government programs or combating corruption.

Amendment via DPDP Act, 2023: The amendment eliminates the public interest override, establishing a complete ban on the disclosure of personal information under RTI. At this time, personal details cannot be revealed solely due to greater public interest if it endangers privacy.

Stance of the Government

The Union government defends this amendment by citing the need to balance fundamental rights: the right to privacy (Article 21) recognized by the Supreme Court (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) and the right to information (Article 19(1)(a)).

They claim that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act permits disclosure when the public interest surpasses the harm to protected interests, ensuring a balance and preventing conflicts among laws.

Critiques and Worries

Impact on Transparency & Accountability: Detractors claim the amendment greatly limits access to essential information needed for social audits, anti-corruption initiatives, and verifying public welfare programs.

Authority Discretion: The expansive interpretation of personal data in the DPDP Act results in arbitrary denials of RTI requests, which may weaken democratic supervision.

Dispute with RTI’s Aim: The initial RTI structure weighed privacy against transparency, permitting revelations that serve the public good. The amendment is viewed as shifting this balance towards undue secrecy, restricting citizens' essential right to examine government activities.

Suggestions

Define “personal information” or “personal data” specifically in the context of RTI; make sure that details about pulic servants' roles, property, etc., are not exempt by default.

Measures on Institutions and Procedures:

Educating Public Information Officers (PIOs) to guarantee a clear comprehension of the balance between privacy and transparency.

Enhance the ability of Information Commissions to resolve disputed claims.

Final observations

The RTI Act aims to shift authority from public officials to citizens by acknowledging their right to information as a fundamental aspect of democracy.

Judicial dilution and the DPDP amendment threaten to transform it into a “Right to Refuse Information.”

Safeguarding the true essence of RTI demands proactive efforts from citizens, media, and policymakers to maintain transparency as a central element of India's democratic governance.