Does Data Act Compromise RTI Act?

Does the Data Act compromise the Right to Information Act? Read here to understand the arguments for and against it.

The constitutional validity of amendments introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which grant a blanket exemption for “personal information” under the Right to Information (RTI) framework, has been referred to a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India.

The core issue is whether the Data Act upsets the carefully evolved balance between transparency (RTI) and privacy (Data Protection), two values recognised as fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Constitutional Background

1. Right to Information

The Right to Information Act, 2005 operationalizes citizens’ right to access government-held information. Though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, RTI flows from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), as recognised in several Supreme Court judgments.

Transparency is seen as essential for:

• Democratic accountability
• Anti-corruption measures
• Participatory governance

2. Right to Privacy

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right, primarily under Article 21, and also linked it to Article 19 freedoms.

The Court directed the government to establish a data protection regime, eventually culminating in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act.

Thus, both transparency and privacy now stand as constitutionally protected values.

The Controversial Amendment

The DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Earlier, personal information could be disclosed if:

• It served a larger public interest, or
• It was not an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

The amendment is alleged to introduce a blanket exemption for personal data without adequately retaining the public interest override.

This raises concerns that the amendment:

• Curtails access to information about public officials.
• Shields wrongdoing under the guise of privacy.
• Weakens the transparency framework.

Does the Data Act compromise the RTI Act?

Arguments Suggesting Compromise

1. Removal of Public Interest Test

The earlier RTI framework balanced privacy with transparency using a proportionality test. A blanket exemption may remove this balancing mechanism. For Example:

• Disclosure of assets of public servants.
• Details of disciplinary proceedings.
• Conflict-of-interest information.

Such information, though “personal,” often has clear public interest implications.

2. Overbroad Definition of Personal Information

If “personal information” is interpreted expansively, it may include:

• Service records of public officials.
• Government contracts involving individuals.
• Examination and recruitment processes.

This could reduce RTI to a hollow right.

3. Weakening Accountability Mechanisms

RTI has historically exposed:

• Corruption scandals.
• Nepotism in appointments.
• Misuse of public funds.

A broad exemption could shield public authorities from scrutiny.

Government’s Likely Justification

1. Protecting Privacy as a Fundamental Right

After Puttaswamy, privacy must be respected. Unrestricted disclosure of personal data could:

• Lead to harassment.
• Violate dignity.
• Enable data misuse.

2. Harmonisation of Two Fundamental Rights

The State may argue that the amendment seeks to harmonise:

• Article 19 (Right to Information)
• Article 21 (Right to Privacy)

The Constitution Bench will likely examine whether the amendment satisfies the test of proportionality.

Why is a Blanket Exemption Problematic?

1. Violates the Doctrine of Proportionality

In Puttaswamy, the Court laid down that any restriction on fundamental rights must:

• Be lawful.
• Have a legitimate aim.
• Be necessary.
• Be proportionate.

A blanket exemption may fail the necessity and proportionality tests.

2. Undermines the Public Interest Override

Transparency laws worldwide allow disclosure of personal data where:

• Corruption is involved.
• Public funds are misused.
• Public office is concerned.

Public servants, by virtue of holding public office, enjoy a lower expectation of privacy in matters connected to official duties.

3. Chilling Effect on Anti-Corruption Activism

RTI has been a tool for:

• Grassroots accountability.
• Investigative journalism.
• Social audits.

Overbroad privacy protections may discourage information-seeking and weaken civil society oversight.

4. Risk of Executive Discretion

Without a clear public interest test:

• Public Information Officers (PIOs) may mechanically deny requests.
• Transparency may depend on subjective interpretation.

This may increase litigation and burden courts.

The Core Constitutional problem

Right to Information	Right to Privacy
Article 19(1)(a)	Article 21
Promotes accountability	Protects dignity
Strengthens democracy	Safeguards autonomy
Enables transparency	Prevents data misuse

The challenge is not choosing one over the other, but achieving harmonious construction.

What Might the Constitution Bench Examine?

The Supreme Court of India may consider:

1. Whether the amendment removes the public interest override.
2. Whether the exemption is narrowly tailored.
3. Whether it meets the proportionality standard.
4. Whether Parliament has diluted the core of a fundamental right.

The Court may also clarify:

• The distinction between the “personal information” of private individuals and public officials.
• Whether official acts can be shielded under privacy.

Implications for government

1. Transparency vs Data Protection in the Digital Era

In a data-driven society:

• Governments hold massive personal datasets.
• Citizens demand accountability.
• Digital privacy risks are real.

India must evolve a framework where:

• Personal data is protected.
• Public accountability is not compromised.

2. Democratic Legitimacy

Excessive opacity may:

• Reduce public trust.
• Increase corruption risks.
• Undermine participatory governance.

Conversely, unregulated disclosure may violate dignity and autonomy.

The solution lies in calibrated balancing, not blanket exclusion.

Conclusion

The amendment through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act raises a critical constitutional question: Can privacy be protected without hollowing out transparency?

A blanket exemption for personal information risks upsetting the delicate balance crafted under the RTI regime and affirmed in the Puttaswamy judgment.

The Constitution Bench’s decision will likely shape the future of digital governance in India, defining how the world’s largest democracy reconciles the twin pillars of transparency and privacy.

UPSC Mains Practice Question

“In the age of data protection, transparency cannot be sacrificed at the altar of privacy.” Critically examine in the context of recent amendments to the RTI framework.