Marking 20 years of the RTI Act (2005), a landmark in India’s citizen-led transparency movement, its spirit now faces challenges from the DPDPA 2023, which risks diluting public access to information and weakening government accountability.

Historical Background of RTI

• Grassroots Struggle: The RTI Act, 2005, was the result of a prolonged movement led by social activists like Aruna Roy and Nikhil De.
• Origin in Mewar: The movement began in Mewar, Rajasthan, known as the “RTI City.”
• People’s Demand: The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) campaigned under the slogan “Our Money, Our Account” (Humara Paisa, Humara Hisab).
• Impact of RTI: The Act empowered citizens to expose corruption, address government delays, and hold officials accountable.
• Commemoration: A memorial/museum is being constructed in Mewar to honor this struggle and educate future generations.

Threats from Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023

• Official Aim vs. Effect: While the DPDPA claims to protect personal data, it is argued to undermine the RTI Act, metaphorically creating a “hole” in the RTI “pot,” causing crucial information to leak away.

Mechanisms Weakening RTI

• Restricting Personal Information Disclosure:
  • RTI Act (Section 8(1)): Personal information could be withheld only if unrelated to public activity or interest. Names of officials in public tenders could be disclosed.
  • DPDPA (Section 44(3)): Personal information cannot be disclosed regardless of public interest.
  • Impact: Public Information Officers (PIUs) can refuse to provide names of officials, making accountability impossible.
• Removal of Citizen Equality Clause:
  • Original Provision: Citizens had the same right to information as Parliament or State Assemblies.
  • DPDPA Amendment: However, the amendment allows the government to restrict information to elected representatives, lowering the status of ordinary citizens.
• Chilling Effect through Severe Penalties:
  • Fines Imposed: Up to ₹250 crore for revealing personal information without permission.
  • Impact: Creates fear among journalists and activists, discouraging exposure of corrupt officials.

Implications

• Hindrance to Accountability: Weakening RTI impedes citizens’ ability to expose corruption despite past successes like the Adarsh Housing Society Scam and Commonwealth Games Scam.
• Lack of Consultation: Amendments were made without public or opposition consultation, undermining democratic principles.

Way Forward

• Restore Public Interest Override: Reinstate the clause allowing disclosure of personal information when larger public interest—such as corruption or misuse of power—is involved.
• Balanced Data Framework: Harmonise the DPDPA and RTI Act through clear rules ensuring that privacy protection does not override transparency in governance.
• Empower Information Commissions: Strengthen the Central and State Information Commissions with greater autonomy, staffing, and digital infrastructure for faster grievance redressal.
• Promote Digital RTI Portals: Expand RTI Online and integrate real-time tracking, feedback, and data analytics to enhance accessibility and reduce bureaucratic delays.
• Civic Awareness: Renew public education on citizens’ right to information, linking it with good governance and anti-corruption movements.

Conclusion

Despite the RTI’s dilution, the citizens’ demand for transparency endures. As the Supreme Court held in State of UP vs Raj Narain (1975), governance must maintain “but few secrets.” Balancing privacy and accountability is key to preserving democratic integrity.

DOWNLOAD PDF