‘Citizens have taken to RTI like fish to water’ Photo credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
The news that the Union Cabinet has approved the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill and it will be introduced in the Monsoon Session of Parliament (July 20-August 11) raises a few issues. The draft bill was placed in the public domain in December 2022 but the final bill has not been placed before the public. Citizens are worried that if two of its provisions are not changed, it can cause major damage to democracy.
The proposed Digital Personal Data Protection Bill has two provisions that will greatly dilute the right to information of Indian citizens. The Indian Right to Information (RTI) Act, effective from 12 October 2005, is one of the best transparency laws in the world, empowering citizens and practical recognition of their role as rulers and owners of India. It is the result of a people’s struggle that began in rural Rajasthan under the leadership of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, which culminated in the drafting of the law in 2004. Its provisions were hotly debated and required an all-party parliamentary committee to carefully draft it. Provision. Its preamble clearly states that democracy requires informed citizens and transparency in the affairs of their government to hold it accountable and curb corruption. It reconciled the need for an efficient government while preserving the ideals of democracy.
embraced by the citizen
This transfer of power to the common citizen has upset the governments and the people who wield the power. Citizens have taken to RTI like a fish to water. Despite public officials using various tools to deprive citizens of their legitimate rights, many have used this democratic tool to expose wrongdoing and corruption. The law assumes that the default mode is that every citizen has the right to access almost all information held by the government. Ten categories of information have been exempted from disclosure to prevent harm to certain interests and to ensure smooth functioning of the Government. These are outlined in Section 8(1), which has 10 subsections A to J.
The most widely misused exemption is section 8(1)(j) which exempts personal information which is not part of a public activity, or which is an invasion of the privacy of an individual. It contains a provision which is an acid test to help any person claiming exemption, which states: ‘Provided that information which cannot be refused to be given to Parliament or a State Legislature, any The person will not be refused to give. Thus, the law states that personal information can be exempt if: it is not related to any public activity or interest, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual.
In order to help an officer, information commissioner or judge to arrive at the right decision, special provision was provided in the form of acid test. Whoever has claimed that disclosure is exempt under section 8(1)(j) should make a statement that he will not give this information to Parliament.
grounds of denial
Many people who refused to provide information did not comply with the law, but instead refused to provide information with a clear statement that since it was personal information, they would not give it up. It was illegal but has been widely used to cover arbitrary, corrupt or illegal acts of government officials. Some examples are: The Department of Personnel and Training has declared the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of IAS officers currently pending for more than one year, two years, three years and four years by claiming exemption under section 8(1). total number” has been rejected. (J); A request for details of the Member of Legislative Assembly’s funds was denied on the grounds that it was personal information; Details of beneficiaries of Prime Minister’s Fund; fake caste certificate, education certificate, ghost employee; gross arbitrariness and corruption in the selection of jobs and non-observance of rules and regulations; assets disproportionate to declared income; verification of affidavits of elected representatives; unfair assessment of students and job seekers in Govt.; Ignoring allegations of corruption against proven officials; File Notes and Minutes of Meetings
What’s in store?
However, many honest officers and commissioners often passed on information when they were not exempt. Unfortunately, the proposed Data Protection Bill plans to amend Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to read as exempt information under clause (j), which deals with personal information.
If this amendment is made, all information relating to an individual can be legally denied. Most information can be shown as belonging to an individual, and so the law will become a right of refusal for public information officers (PIOs) who do not want to give information. Incidentally, this proposal is a tacit acknowledgment that it is currently illegal to reject any information merely on the grounds of it being ‘personal information’. Whenever a PIO wants to refuse to give information, he can link it to any person. The proposed Bill defines the term ‘person’ very broadly to include individuals, companies and the State. Most of the information except the budget will be related to one of these. Thus, RTI would become a right to deny information, making it an ineffective tool.
In 18 years, no national or private interest has been harmed by RTI. Therefore, the proposed amendment would lead to a major regression for democracy.
Shailesh Gandhi is the former Central Information Commissioner