Context

• The Right to Information (RTI) Act in India has long been celebrated as a landmark legislation that deepened democracy by empowering citizens with access to government-held information.
• By establishing transparency as the default mode of governance, the RTI transformed the relationship between citizens and the state, enabling ordinary people to scrutinize decisions, demand accountability, and expose corruption.
• Yet, the recent amendments to Section 8(1)(j) through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act mark a significant departure from this vision.
• What was once a nuanced balance between privacy and transparency now risks becoming a legal framework for denying access to vital public information.

The Original Balance of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

• When first enacted, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act sought to carefully reconcile the citizen’s right to information with the individual’s right to privacy.
• It allowed public authorities to withhold personal information only if it had no connection to public activity or if disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
• Even then, disclosure was permitted when a larger public interest justified it.
• A crucial safeguard in this provision was its proviso: information that could not be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature could not be denied to an ordinary citizen either.
• This acid test ensured that privacy could not be used as a blanket excuse to restrict transparency, while also acknowledging that privacy is an evolving concept, to be assessed case by case.

The Ambiguity of Personal Information

• The DPDP Act’s intervention has radically altered this equilibrium. By reducing Section 8(1)(j) to a mere six words, it introduces ambiguity and expands the scope of “personal information” to the point of absurdity.
• Two interpretations of person now compete: one confined to natural persons, the other, derived from the DPDP Bill, encompassing entities as diverse as companies, associations, and even the state itself.
• If the latter definition prevails, nearly every document or decision could be shielded as personal information.
• In effect, the RTI risks being transformed into a Right to Deny Information (RDI).
• This expansive interpretation is compounded by the DPDP Act’s overriding effect on other laws and its severe penalties for disclosure violations, which may reach as high as ₹250 crore.
• Faced with such risks, Public Information Officers (PIOs) are incentivised to adopt a defensive posture, erring on the side of denial rather than disclosure.
• This chilling effect undermines the very spirit of the RTI, replacing openness with opacity.

Implications for Corruption and Accountability

• Corruption thrives in secrecy, and transparency has long been one of the few effective tools available to citizens in combating it.
• With broadened definitions of personal information, even routine and seemingly harmless documents, such as a corrected marksheet, a signed official order, or lists of pension beneficiaries, can now be withheld.
• Examples like Rajasthan’s public disclosure of pension details, which once exposed ghost employees and ghost cards, may no longer be permissible.
• This legal transformation effectively institutionalises opacity. Information that directly exposes corruption or malpractice could be dismissed as personal.
• Even the clause allowing disclosure in cases of larger public interest provides little relief, as it is rarely invoked in practice and demands an onerous justification from citizens.
• Thus, the DPDP amendments not only weaken the RTI but also embolden corruption by making concealment the default.

Apathy and the Need for Collective Action

• Unlike previous RTI amendments, such as those altering the salaries and tenures of commissioners, these changes have not sparked widespread outrage.
• Part of the reason lies in their presentation: couched in the language of data protection, they appear benign or even necessary.
• Moreover, many citizens mistakenly believe that their own data, however collected or used by the government, should remain private at all costs, overlooking the broader implications for collective accountability.
• Addressing this requires urgent and coordinated action.
• First, media and citizen engagement must intensify, creating awareness and debate across the country.
• Second, political accountability should be demanded, with parties required to commit to reversing these amendments in their manifestos.
• Third, strong public opinion must be cultivated, treating this issue with the same gravity as other national crises.

Conclusion

• The RTI Act was never merely a piece of legislation; it was a democratic promise that citizens would have the means to hold their government accountable.
• By hollowing out Section 8(1)(j) and prioritising privacy in an indiscriminate manner, the DPDP Act risks converting this promise into an illusion.
• Transparency and accountability, the lifeblood of democracy, are imperilled by legal ambiguities that empower denial rather than disclosure.
• The future of transparency in India now depends on whether its people can reclaim the RTI before it is too late.