‘DPDP doesn’t weaken RTI Act’: AG backs IT ministry

THe attorney superior general has endorsed the IT ministry’s reading that bharat’s Digital Personal information shelter Act does not weaken the Right to Information Act, a move that comes amid criticism that the privacy law weakens the country’s transparency regulation for public officials.According to a senior official from the IT ministry, the attorney general’s opinion was sought following criticism from journalist bodies and opposition leaders.The endorsement concerns Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, notified on August 11, 2023, which deletes a proviso in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act that allowed public information officers to disclose personal information if deemed to serve the larger public interest.The IT ministry argued this proviso was redundant since Section 8(2) of the RTI Act already empowers authorities to release any information, including exempted data, if public interest outweighs potential harm. The ministry sought the Attorney General’s view on this contentious provision, and his concurrence confirms this interpretation, the person cited above added.With the Attorney General’s backing, the ministry expects no further amendments to the DPDP Act. The Attorney General declined to comment when contacted.“There is no dilution, and in fact there is a strengthening,” IT secretary S Krishnan told HT last month.Several journalist bodies disputed this interpretation in July, demanding the government restore the unamended section in full. They argued the change strips reporters of a vital tool to access personal information for public interest stories crucial in exposing corruption, scams, and issues affecting citizens’ lives.Congress leader Jairam Ramesh also raised concerns, writing to IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw that the amendment would have a “devastating” effect on the RTI Act. He urged the government to “pause, review, and repeal” the change.Anjali Bhardwaj, an RTI activist and co-convener of National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, termed the IT ministry’s claim “blatantly misleading”. “The IT ministry’s claim that the DPDP Act does not dilute people’s right to information is blatantly misleading and false. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act clearly amends section 8(1(j) of the RTI law and exempts disclosure of all personal information. This is a huge blow to the information access regime in the country as access to granular information is critical for ensuring accountability of those in power. This amendment will potentially prevent people from accessing names of loan defaulters, names of contractors and officials involved in corruption and wrongdoing, and details of beneficiaries of social welfare schemes, which are needed to expose and prevent corruption and human rights violations,” she said.Another RTI activist, Amrita Johri, said: “This is rather surprising. If in the opinion of the ministry and the AG, the right to access information under the RTI Act remains unchanged despite the changes made to Section 8(1)(j) through the DPDP Act then why was the RTI Act amended at all? There have been numerous judgments on the RTI Act including those by constitution benches on interpreting Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and in none of the judgments, was there a view that the RTI Act needed to be amended. The RTI Act has been used extensively to expose corruption and that is possible only when you can get names of the contractors and officials who bent the rules to favour certain interests or cleared payments against fake bills. This amendment will provide a shield of privacy for the corrupt to hide behind.”Defending the amendment during the Lok Sabha’s monsoon session last month, Vaishnaw said it strikes a balance between privacy rights, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, and information rights whilst preventing conflicts between the two laws and aligning with judicial reasoning.At a meeting with media bodies last month, the IT ministry agreed to publish FAQs addressing DPDP Act concerns, including the RTI amendment. Media organisations have submitted 35 questions, including: “If the ministry believes RTI access remains unchanged despite DPDP Act modifications because of Section 8(2), why was the RTI Act amended at all?”More than two years after the DPDP Act passed both parliamentary houses and received presidential assent, the government is now preparing to notify the final rules that will operationalise the law and enable its enforcement. The rules are yet to be released.