Govt ignored Niti red flag that data protection law could weaken RTI

Contact Counsellor

Last Updated01/10/2024

Amid protests from stakeholders including Opposition parties and the civil society on provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, the government faced some pushback from within as well.

Niti Aayog, the government’s top think tank, opposed certain provisions in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, particularly amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
These changes could potentially weaken the RTI Act by preventing the disclosure of personal information about public officials, even when it serves the larger public interest.
In January 2023, Niti Aayog formally wrote to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) urging them to reconsider the law. They expressed concerns that the amendment would strip public information officers of their ability to assess if the public interest justifies the release of personal information.

The controversial amendment targets Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which currently permits the disclosure of personal information if it relates to public activity or serves the public interest.
However, under the new data protection law, this provision is altered to prevent the disclosure of personal information of public officials, regardless of public interest.
This raised concerns, as it would limit the ability of citizens to access crucial information related to public officials, effectively diluting the transparency the RTI Act was designed to provide.

Despite Niti Aayog’s warnings, MeitY did not alter the provision. One key reason was that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the agency responsible for implementing the RTI Act, did not raise any concerns.
The bill was eventually passed by Parliament in August 2023, and while it has not yet been operationalized, the proposed changes to the RTI Act remain.

Opposition parties and civil society groups also criticized the provision during consultations and parliamentary debates. The government, in its defense, stated that the right to privacy, a fundamental right under the Constitution, must be extended to public officials as well.