Impact of the DPDP Act on the RTI Act

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, has raised concerns about its potential to weaken the Right to Information (RTI) Act, particularly regarding the balance between privacy and transparency.

Key Concerns:

• Amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of RTI: The amendment limits the disclosure of personal information of public officials, even when larger public interest may justify such disclosure.
• Reduced Public Scrutiny: The change may strip Public Information Officers (PIOs) of the discretion to decide whether personal information can be disclosed, potentially obstructing transparency.
• Niti Aayog’s Concerns: Niti Aayog has expressed that removing the public interest clause could undermine the RTI Act, advocating for revisions to maintain its strength.
• Government’s Justification: The government argues that privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution, and this right should extend to public officials as well.
• Opposition and Activist Criticism: Opposition parties and civil society groups have voiced concerns, claiming that the amendment threatens transparency and public oversight.

Challenges:

• Reduced Transparency: The amendment may hinder access to information crucial for exposing corruption or misconduct, as personal information related to public officials may no longer be disclosed.
• Weakened Accountability: With restricted disclosure, public officials might avoid scrutiny for their official actions.
• Potential Misuse: The privacy protections could be exploited to prevent legitimate inquiries into officials’ conduct, affecting governance and public trust.
• Balancing Privacy and Transparency: The tension between privacy and the need for transparency and accountability creates a difficult challenge in governance.
• Impact on the RTI Framework: The core principles of the RTI Act, aimed at promoting transparency, may be compromised, reducing its overall effectiveness.

Way Forward:

• Balance Privacy and Transparency: Safeguards should be put in place to ensure disclosure in cases where public interest outweighs privacy concerns. For instance, in the UK, personal data can be disclosed if it serves a legitimate public interest under the Freedom of Information Act.
• Strengthen Oversight: Independent bodies like Information Commissions should have the authority to determine when public interest justifies disclosure, as done by the Ombudsman in New Zealand.
• Clarify Amendments: The conditions under which public officials’ personal information can be disclosed should be clearly defined to avoid confusion.
• Public Consultation and Revision: Further consultations should be held to address stakeholder concerns and ensure that the RTI Act retains its integrity.
• Training for PIOs: Public Information Officers need enhanced training to effectively balance privacy and public interest when handling information requests.