PRIVACY, TRANSPARENCY

NEWS: The article discusses the conflict between Privacy (DPDP Act, 2023) and Transparency (RTI Act, 2005) after the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and why it may weaken democratic accountability.

ABOUT

• The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act to a Constitution Bench.
• Reason: The issue involves constitutional sensitivity (privacy vs right to information).

Purpose of RTI Act:

• To create an informed citizenry
• To ensure government accountability
• To reduce information asymmetry between State and citizens

Section 8(1)(j) earlier

• Public authorities could deny personal information ONLY if:
  • It had no relation to public activity, OR Disclosure caused unwarranted invasion of privacy
• Crucial safeguard: Public Interest Overrideà If larger public interest exists, information could still be disclosed.
  • Example: Assets of public officials, corruption records, public expenditure details

changes after DPDP Act, 2023 amendment

• The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act amended RTI Section 8(1)(j).
• New Changeà Prohibits disclosure of “any information relating to personal information”
  • Removes the public interest override

Comparison with Global Standards

• EU’s GDPR Model–>Balances privacy + transparency
• Allows disclosure when public interest exists

Constitutional Dimension

The Constitution Bench may examine:

• Article 19(1)(a): Right to Information (derived from Freedom of Speech)
• Article 21: Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy Judgment)
• Relevant Case Mentioned: Central Public Information Officer vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)
  • Principle: Personal information should remain private unless larger public interest justifies disclosure