Introduction
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is celebrated as a cornerstone of citizen empowerment and democratic accountability. It enables individuals to access public authority records, conduct social audits, and expose corruption. However, recent amendments—particularly through the DPDP Act, 2023—have raised major concerns. Critics argue these changes effectively dilute core RTI provisions, threaten institutional autonomy, and undermine transparency.
What Changed: RTI Versus Privacy Amendment
Blanket Exemption of Personal Information
The amendment replaces RTI’s Section 8(1)(j) which originally permitted withholding personal data only when disclosure infringed privacy and absent greater public interest. The new clause removes this public interest safeguard, establishing a blanket ban on personal information disclosure, irrespective of its public relevance MEDIANAMA+1Reddit+1Reddit+8The Indian Express+8Next IAS+8.
Undermining Institutional Independence
Previously, Information Commissioners (CICs and SICs) enjoyed fixed five-year tenure and salary parity with the Election Commission. The 2019 amendment subordinated these provisions to government control—allowing the Centre to set tenure and pay via executive rules, eroding the commissions’ independence and federal autonomy Reddit+6The Indian Express+6ThePrint+6.
Criticism from Civil Society, Veterans, and Leaders
Democratic Backlash
Over 30 civil society organizations—including IFF, SNS, Common Cause, and NCPRI—have demanded repeal of the amendment, asserting it reverses RTI’s foundational balance between privacy and transparency The Indian Express+2MEDIANAMA+2Next IAS+2.
Senior Congress leaders like Jairam Ramesh and Mallikarjun Kharge have condemned the change, calling it an “RTI‑destroying” amendment, urging the government to pause, review, and reverse it immediately Reddit+4MEDIANAMA+4Uniindia+4.
Expert Warnings
Former Information Commissioners—including Yashovardhan Azad, Annapurna Dixit, and Sridhar Acharyulu—warn that altering tenure and salary provisions shields officials from accountability and weakens institutional autonomy Reddit+3ThePrint+3Reddit+3.
Legal & Transparency Implications
Erosion of Public Oversight
The amended clauses could block access to crucial data used for social audits—such as MGNREGA lists, scholarship allocations, ration entitlements, or caste certificates—thereby obstructing citizens’ power to hold institutions accountable Civilstap Himachal+2MEDIANAMA+2Next IAS+2.
Creation of a “Right to Denial”
With almost any data considered "personal information," RTI officials may lawfully reject information requests under privacy masking—effectively converting RTI from a right to information into a right to denial newslaundry.com+10MEDIANAMA+10Legacy IAS Academy+10.
Transparency Gaps in Surveillance & RTI Exemptions
Amendments enabling home secretaries to delete surveillance records (Rule 23 amendments) and exemptions for agencies like CERT-In under the RTI Act further diminish traceability in governance actions, deepening opacity in public accountability mechanisms Legacy IAS Academy+3newslaundry.com+3Reddit+3.
Ongoing RTI Landscape: Proactive Disclosure and Counter-Moves
State Commissions Strengthening Transparency
The Maharashtra SIC recently mandated that all public authorities publish RTI applications and replies online, making them keyword-searchable to reduce repetitive requests—reinforcing Section 4 proactive disclosure principles The Times of India+1The Times of India+1.
The Gujarat SIC recommended reversing RTI exemptions for cybercrime units (CID), noting that victims of cyberfraud should have access to case progress to uphold transparency and justice The Times of India.
Cost of RTI Misuse
The Bombay High Court criticized frivolous RTI applications—like requests about daily samosa counts—highlighting the need to preserve RTI for governance-related queries, not trivial matters, while respecting principled usage economictimes.indiatimes.com.
Balanced Path Forward: Safeguarding RTI Without Sacrificing Privacy
-
Restore Public Interest Override: Reinstating the public interest exception in Section 8(1)(j) ensures necessary disclosures—such as those exposing corruption—remain protected.
-
Safeguard Commissioner Autonomy: Reinstate fixed tenure and salary protections for ICs under the RTI Act, decoupled from executive control to uphold transparency institutionally.
-
Define ‘Personal Information’ Clearly: Narrow and precise definitions—excluding public interest data like beneficiary lists or procurement records—must be codified.
-
Anti-SLAPP and Harassment Safeguards: Encourage use of RTI through effective checks against frivolous requests without suppressing legitimate civic information needs.
-
Expand Proactive Disclosure & Digital Access: States like Maharashtra provide a model for systemic publication of RTI data to reduce repetitive and pending applications.
-
Enforce Oversight on Surveillance Records: Surveillance data deletion powers and agency exemptions must not curtail retrospective access under RTI’s 20-year limit clause (Section 6(3)).
Conclusion
The RTI Act has long embodied the democratic principle that transparency—especially for marginalized citizens—is essential for accountability. The recent amendments introduced through the DPDP Act risk undermining that principle by broadening privacy exemptions and eroding institutional independence.
Civil society, transparency advocates, legal experts, and judicial pronouncements continue to reject these changes, calling for a restoration of the Act’s core integrity. The path forward demands repeal or substantial recalibration to ensure that privacy protections do not overshadow public oversight, and that citizen rights to information remain robust.
Without such corrections, the RTI Act risks losing its power as a tool of accountability, accountability tools become opaque, and the citizen-state information imbalance widens. Upholding RTI in spirit and letter remains vital to preserving democratic accountability in India.