RTI Act Amendment via the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

RTI Act Amendment via the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

A Critical Analysis of the RTI Act Amendment via the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPEP) Act, 2023

Abstract

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, a cornerstone of transparency in Indian governance, faces a significant challenge through an amendment introduced by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. This editorial analysis, drawing from The Hindu’s article “Unnecessary Amendment: On the RTI Act” (April 15, 2025) and the author’s website content on the DPDP Act’s impact on educational data, examines the implications of this amendment. The amendment modifies Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, removing safeguards that allowed disclosure of personal information in the public interest. This article argues that the amendment is unwarranted, as the RTI Act already balances privacy and transparency, and its alteration risks undermining public accountability. The analysis integrates insights from the DPDP Act’s application to educational data systems like UDISEPlus, highlighting broader privacy-transparency tensions.

Introduction

The RTI Act, enacted in 2005, has been instrumental in fostering accountability by enabling citizens to access government-held information. However, recent legislative efforts, notably through the DPDP Act 2023, threaten to dilute its provisions. As outlined in The Hindu’s editorial (2025), the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) via Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act allows government bodies to withhold “personal information” without considering the public interest, a departure from the RTI Act’s original framework. Concurrently, implementing the DPDP Act, as discussed on the author’s website (Education for All in India, 2025), imposes stringent privacy regulations on systems like UDISEPlus, which manages educational data. This article critically evaluates the RTI amendment’s necessity and implications, contextualizing it within the DPDP Act’s broader privacy framework.

The RTI Amendment: Key Concerns

The original section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act permitted the withholding of personal information unless its disclosure served the public interest, as determined by Public Information Officers or appellate authorities. This safeguard was crucial in cases like the exposure of a bureaucrat’s fake caste certificate, where private information was disclosed for public accountability (The Hindu, 2025). The DPDP Act’s amendment removes this discretion, allowing blanket exemptions for “personal information” without public interest considerations. The editorial argues that this change is unnecessary, as the RTI Act already harmonizes privacy and transparency through its public interest test.

Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw defended the amendment, claiming it prevents RTI “misuse” and aligns with the privacy rights upheld in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). However, the vague definition of “personal information” in the DPDP Act risks enabling authorities to classify previously accessible data (e.g., public officials’ salaries or qualifications) as private, reducing scrutiny (The Hindu, 2025). The editorial emphasizes that the RTI Act’s existing framework adequately addresses privacy concerns, rendering the amendment redundant and potentially detrimental to transparency.

DPDP Act and Educational Data: A Parallel Perspective

The author’s website (Education for All in India, 2025) details the DPDP Act’s impact on UDISEPlus, a system collecting student and teacher data for educational planning. The DPDP Act mandates explicit consent, data minimization, and breach notifications, aligning with its privacy-centric objectives. For UDISEPlus, this means obtaining parental consent for minors’ data, reviewing fields like Aadhaar, and enabling data access or erasure rights. While these measures enhance privacy, they also introduce administrative challenges and potential exemptions for government initiatives like UDISEPlus under national security or public order clauses.

The DPDP Act’s educational implications mirror the RTI amendment’s transparency-privacy tension. Both contexts involve balancing individual rights with public interest, yet the DPDP Act’s broad application risks over-prioritizing privacy at the expense of accountability. For instance, UDISEPlus’s data, critical for educational policy, could face restricted access if overly classified as “personal,” paralleling the RTI amendment’s impact on governance data.

Analysis and Implications

The RTI amendment undermines a carefully crafted balance in the original Act, allowing nuanced information disclosure decision-making. Removing public interest safeguards risks shielding malpractices under the guise of privacy, as seen in potential denials of RTI requests for public servants’ credentials (The Hindu, 2025). The DPDP Act’s vague terminology exacerbates this, enabling subjective interpretations that could erode public trust in governance.

The DPDP Act’s privacy protections are laudable in the educational domain but may complicate systems like UDISEPlus, where data transparency supports policy-making. The Act’s exemptions for government functions could mitigate some restrictions, but their inconsistent application across RTI and educational contexts creates uncertainty. The government must address these concerns by revisiting the RTI amendment and clarifying DPDP Act exemptions to ensure that neither transparency nor privacy is disproportionately compromised.

Concluding Observations

The amendment to the RTI Act via the DPDP Act, 2023, is an unnecessary intervention that disrupts the Act’s established balance between transparency and privacy. As The Hindu (2025) argues, the RTI Act’s existing provisions adequately address privacy concerns, and the amendment risks diminishing public accountability. Similarly, as explored on the author’s website, the DPDP Act’s application to educational data highlights the need for careful calibration to avoid hindering systems like UDISEPlus. Policymakers should heed civil society’s calls to repeal the RTI amendment and ensure the DPDP Act’s implementation fosters privacy and public interest. Future research should explore the long-term impacts of these legislative changes on governance and educational transparency.

Suggested Readings

Education for All in India