The digital age dilemma: India at the crossroads of privacy and transparency

In an era defined by the relentless surge of digital data which transformed our lives and governance with an unprecedented speed, India finds itself at a critical juncture, grappling with a fundamental question: how to safeguard the sacrosanct right to privacy of its citizens in an increasingly interconnected world while preserving the essential tenets of transparency and accountability in governance that underpin a healthy democracy.

In an environment where every online interaction leaves a digital footprint, the need for a robust legal framework to govern the collection, processing, storage, and sharing of this data has become paramount.

The recent enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and its subsequent ripple effect on the landmark Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, have brought this delicate balancing act into sharp focus, igniting a nationwide debate with far-reaching implications for the nation's democratic fabric.

This laudable pursuit of privacy protection has inadvertently cast a shadow on another cornerstone of Indian democracy: the Right to Information Act, 2005. For nearly two decades, the RTI Act has served as a powerful tool for citizens, a sword against opacity to hold the government accountable, fostering transparency by granting them the right to seek and access information held by public authorities.

Now, this very foundation of transparency finds itself facing an unforeseen challenge. The DPDP Act, through the seemingly innocuous insertion of Section 44(3), has brought about a significant amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act – the very clause that previously governed the exemption of personal information from disclosure. The original provision, carefully crafted, allowed for the withholding of personal information only if it bore no relation to any public activity or interest, or if its disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. Crucially, it also incorporated a vital "public interest" override, recognising that in certain circumstances, the greater good demanded the release of even personal information, and ensured parity with information accessible to the Parliament.

The amended clause, however, is starkly different. It simply states that “(j) information which relates to personal information shall be exempt from disclosure”. This seemingly concise change has triggered widespread concern among transparency advocates, who fear that it could severely curtail the effectiveness of the RTI Act by creating a blanket ban on the disclosure of any information deemed "personal," regardless of its relevance to public interest.

The government, however, defends the amendment by asserting that it aligns with the Supreme Court's judgment on the right to privacy and aims to prevent the misuse of the RTI Act. Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw has stated that information subject to disclosure under other laws will continue to be accessible through RTI. However, it is argued that the RTI Act already had sufficient safeguards to protect privacy while allowing for disclosure in the larger public interest.

The potential ramifications of this amendment are significant. There’s an underlying fear that authorities might now reject RTI requests for a wide range of information, including details about public officials' assets, educational qualifications, and disciplinary records, by broadly interpreting the term "personal information". This could severely impede ongoing efforts to combat corruption, hold public officials accountable for their actions, and subject government decisions to meaningful public scrutiny. The removal of the parity principle with parliamentary disclosure further fuels concerns about the creation of a two-tiered system of information access, where elected representatives may have greater access than the citizens they represent.