'Restricts Access To Info, Favours Potentially Corrupt Officials': Justice AP Shah Writes To AG Urging Roll Back Of Amendments To RTI Act

Former Delhi High Court judge Justice Ajit Prakash Shah has written an open letter to the Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani, expressing "concern" over the legislative changes made to RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, remarking that these changes threaten to dismantle the Act's purpose of democratic accountability and citizen empowerment. "It has come to my attention – through reports in The Economic Times and other sources – that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ('MeitY') has formally sought your legal opinion on whether the DPDP Act undermines the RTI Act. As a concerned citizen, I have applied my mind to this important subject. My endeavour in submitting this opinion is to assist your office and contribute meaningfully to the public discourse on this matter of urgent constitutional importance," the letter states. The former Chairman of the Law Commission has said that original RTI Act, particularly Section 8(1)(j), meticulously balanced the public's right to know with the individual's right to privacy – a balance consistently affirmed by the Indian judiciary; the recent amendments, however, "destroy this delicate equilibrium".The letter lists the manner in which the DPDP Act 2023 attempts to harm the RTI Act which is as follows:Section 44(3) DPDP Act replaces exemption in Section 8(1)(j) with an over-broad provision for withholding information, and removing the "public interest” override. It empowers public authorities to deny information by classifying information as "personal," regardless of its public importance.The removal of proviso to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act mandating that information not deniable to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person - is alarming for democracy. The expansive definition of 'personal data' in DPDP Act, coupled with the absence of a public interest override curtails proactive disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act. It adds:"The RTI Act was a potent weapon against corruption, making government officials wary of misconduct. This amendment weakens that deterrent effect. The amendment creates an information asymmetry that favors public authorities and potentially corrupt officials. By restricting access to personal information that is intrinsically linked to public activity, it shifts the balance of power away from citizens and oversight bodies, making it harder to hold the government accountable. This directly undermines the foundational purpose of the RTI Act". Empowers authorities to classify any data as personal data exempting it from disclosureThe letter states that the DPDP Act's Section 44(3) drastically amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to simply read:"(j) information which relates to personal information."It states that the textual change might seem minor however it fundamentally alters its original character and purpose as it removes the crucial qualifying phrases: "the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual." While the RTI Act itself does not define "personal information," the DPDP Act defines "personal data" broadly as "any data about an individual who is identifiable by or in relation to such data." The letter states that this broad and vague definition, when implicitly applied to RTI, enables public authorities to "classify virtually any data related to an individual as "personal information," thereby exempting it from disclosure". It states:"This could include public officials' salaries, educational qualifications, disciplinary actions, and property records, which were previously accessible. The vagueness of 'personal information', coupled with the removal of qualifiers in the original 8(1)(j), is a significant legal loophole. It shifs the burden of proof on the public authority to justify non-disclosure based on specific criteria, to the RTI applicant, who now has to prove the information is not 'personal'. Thus, it fundamentally alters the RTI Act's openness principle and creates a ripe environment for PIOs to shield information"It also states that the public interest override has been completely removed from Section 8(1)(j) which means that even if the disclosure of certain personal information is overwhelmingly in the public interest it can now be denied outright simply because it relates to 'personal information'. What does the amendment to S. 8(1)(j) entailThe amendment protects all personal information, regardless of public relevance. Such information can be denied in all cases if it relates to personal information. There can be no disclosure even if public interest is involved and while personal Info is undefined but its is likely to be interpreted broadly. 'Chilling Impact on Journalists', potential heavy penaltiesThe letter states that the amendments pose a severe threat to independent journalism and the freedom of the press. It...

'Restricts Access To Info, Favours Potentially Corrupt Officials': Justice AP Shah Writes To AG Urging Roll Back Of Amendments To RTI Act

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Restricts Access To Info, Favours Potentially Corrupt Officials': Justice AP Shah Writes To AG Urging Roll Back Of Amendments To RTI Act

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers