The DPDP Act 2023, through Section 44(3), amends the RTI Act by broadening exemptions for personal data disclosure. Activists argue it weakens transparency by removing the public interest test, allowing authorities to deny access to critical information, such as officials' asset declarations, thereby undermining accountability and the RTI Act’s intent.
Copyright infringement not intended
Activists oppose Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act).
It establishes a comprehensive legal framework to protect personal data. It governs how organisations collect, process, store, and share personal information, while ensuring that individuals maintain control over their data.
It applies to all entities—both private and public—that process personal data within India. It covers foreign organizations if they offer goods or services to Indian citizens. The Act mandates compliance from any entity handling personal data, regardless of its location, as long as it involves Indian users.
About Section 44(3)
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act modifies Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
|
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, exempts from disclosure information relating to personal information if its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy, unless the public interest outweighs the privacy concern. |
Activists raised concern because this change broadens the scope for withholding personal information under the guise of protecting privacy.
The revised clause states that "information which relates to personal information" can now be denied without considering whether its disclosure serves a larger public interest. This blanket exemption eliminates the balancing act that previously existed, where authorities had to evaluate whether disclosing such information would benefit the public or cause unwarranted harm.
By removing the requirement to justify denial based on public interest, the new provision could allow government agencies to withhold critical details—such as asset declarations by public servants—that have traditionally been disclosed to promote transparency and accountability.
Under the current RTI Act, Section 8(1)(j) requires authorities to weigh two factors before denying access to personal information:
If either condition applies, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Public Information Officer (SPIO), or appellate authority must determine if the larger public interest justifies sharing the data. For example, the assets and liabilities of politicians or bureaucrats are disclosed since they fall within the realm of public interest.
However, with Section 44(3) in place, the amended rule states that "information which relates to personal information" cannot be shared. It removes the need for authorities to assess public interest, and creates a loophole for agencies to deny requests arbitrarily, this undermines the spirit of the RTI Act.
|
Tension between the Right to information and the Right to privacy The tension arises from the competing principles of transparency and confidentiality; ● Citizens have a fundamental right to know what their government is doing, especially when it involves taxpayer money, policy decisions, or ethical conduct. ● Individuals—including public officials—have a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding sensitive personal information. |
Must Read Articles:
DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION
DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL 2023
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT (RTI)
Source:
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. "Transparency is the cornerstone of good governance, but excessive transparency can infringe on individual privacy." Critically analyze. 150 words |
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
