The RTI’s Shift to A ‘Right to Deny Information’
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Environment
Source: TH
Context: The DPDP Act, 2023 amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, shrinking it to a few words, allowing broad denial of information as “personal”.
• Experts fear this could weaken transparency, turning RTI into a “Right to Deny Information” and shielding corruption.
About The RTI’s Shift to A ‘Right to Deny Information’:
Right to Information (RTI) Act – Overview
• Enacted in 2005, RTI empowers citizens to demand information from public authorities, enforcing Article 19(1)(a).
• It enables social audits, accountability, and participatory governance, strengthening democracy.
• Section 8(1)(j):
• Earlier allowed denial only if data had no public interest relevance or caused unwarranted privacy violation. Proviso: If info cannot be denied to Parliament/Legislature, it cannot be denied to any citizen — ensuring parity.
• Earlier allowed denial only if data had no public interest relevance or caused unwarranted privacy violation.
• Proviso: If info cannot be denied to Parliament/Legislature, it cannot be denied to any citizen — ensuring parity.
DPDP Act and RTI:
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 seeks to regulate data privacy but overrides RTI safeguards.
• The amendment reduces Section 8(1)(j) to a vague clause, widening the scope to deny even harmless information.
• The DPDP’s definition of “person” includes individuals, firms, companies, HUFs, associations, and the State, making nearly all information fall under “personal data”.
• With ₹250 crore penalties for data breach, PIOs may prefer blanket denial to avoid risk — eroding the right to know.
Concerns:
• Transparency Undermined: Most requests — like pension lists, recruitment data — may be rejected citing privacy.
• Public Interest Test Ignored: Constitutional mandate of maximum disclosure is sidelined, making citizens prove “larger public interest”.
• Chilling Effect on PIOs: Fear of penalties pushes officers to reject requests rather than face legal consequences.
• Corruption Shield: Ghost employees, fake beneficiaries, and procurement scams may go undetected, enabling misuse of funds.
• Democratic Regression: Weakens the citizen’s role as watchdog, diluting accountability mechanisms essential for democracy.
Challenges Associated:
• Legal Ambiguity: Conflict between privacy (Puttaswamy judgment) and transparency lacks clear balancing framework.
• Institutional Weakness: CIC and State Commissions suffer 30–40% vacancies, causing long pendency of appeals.
• Digital Divide: Rural poor may find it harder to pursue online RTI appeals, reducing inclusiveness.
• Citizen Apathy: Limited civil society mobilisation compared to 2005 RTI movement; weaker public pressure.
• Political Reluctance: Governments benefit from opacity and are unlikely to proactively restore strong RTI provisions.
Way Forward:
• Reinstate Proviso: Ensure citizens get same access to information as Parliamentarians to protect parity and accountability.
• Narrow Definition: Limit “personal information” to sensitive data only (health, family details) using proportionality principle.
• Strengthen Institutions: Fill vacancies in CIC/State Commissions, improve funding, set time-bound disposal norms.
• Proactive Disclosure: Government must publish key datasets online (beneficiary lists, tenders) reducing need for RTIs.
• Balance Privacy & Transparency: Apply Supreme Court’s proportionality test (Puttaswamy Case) to harmonise both rights.
Conclusion:
RTI is India’s most powerful anti-corruption law, empowering citizens to hold the state accountable. Weakening it through vague privacy clauses risks reversing transparency gains of two decades. Legislators, courts, and civil society must work to restore RTI’s spirit as a tool of participatory democracy.