Answer

Introduction

The Right to Information Act (2005) empowered citizens to hold the government accountable and deepened democratic transparency. However, recent changes like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) threaten to dilute its scope by restricting access to public information. This shift risks undoing decades of progress in open and accountable governance.

Body

How the Reducing Effectiveness of RTI Affects Transparency

• Erosion of Public Accountability: Limiting access to information, especially under the pretext of “personal data protection,” prevents exposure of corruption and administrative misconduct.
  Eg: Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) blocks disclosure of officials’ names, shielding those responsible for wrongdoing.
• Undermining the Public Interest Principle: The amendment overrides the RTI’s earlier balance between privacy and public interest, curbing scrutiny of decisions affecting governance.
  Eg: The deletion of Section 8(2)’s public interest overrides citizens’ ability to access information on matters of governance and expenditure.
• Loss of Institutional Transparency: With the RTI Act hollowed out, government bodies regain control over what is disclosed, reversing the culture of openness built since 2005.
  Eg: Activists argue that the RTI “vessel” now remains empty; citizens receive selective or sanitized information rather than verifiable facts.
• Weakened Investigative Journalism and Civil Oversight: Journalists and NGOs lose access to official records needed to expose irregularities and ensure checks on power.
  Eg: The DPDPA’s blanket protection for “personal information” restricts journalists and researchers from revealing misuse of authority.
• Reduced Legislative Equivalence: Deletion of the clause equating citizens’ right to information with Parliament’s right limits democratic parity between people and their representatives.

How the Reducing Effectiveness of RTI Affects Citizen Empowerment

• Diminished Ability to Demand Accountability: Citizens can no longer name or identify officials responsible for corruption, weakening their power to hold authorities answerable.
• Weakening of Grassroots Movements: RTI once empowered rural communities to demand wages, rations, and fair governance; the curbs risk reversing these local democratic gains.
  Eg: The MKSS-led RTI movement in Rajasthan had used information to expose fraud in public works and ensure payment of labourers.
• Rise in Executive Arbitrariness: With discretion over disclosure shifted entirely to the government, citizens lose the right to challenge arbitrary state decisions.
• Chilling Effect on Whistleblowers and Activists: The threat of heavy penalties for disclosure deters individuals from exposing corruption or administrative failures.
  Eg: The DPDPA imposes fines up to ₹250 crore, discouraging journalists, RTI users, and researchers from publicizing wrongdoing.
• Erosion of Democratic Participation: When citizens lack access to information, their ability to engage in informed debate and participate meaningfully in governance declines.
  

Conclusion

Reviving RTI’s spirit requires stronger safeguards for transparency, proactive disclosure, and protection for whistleblowers. Balancing privacy with public interest is key to preserving accountability. Only through openness can India sustain a truly participatory democracy.

DOWNLOAD PDF