INTEGRATED MAINS AND PRELIMS MENTORSHIP (IMPM) 2025 Daily KEY
| Exclusive for Subscribers Daily:
Right to Information (RTI) Act and Election Commission (EC) and its significance for the UPSC Exam? Why are topics like Significance of Mental Health , Light Emitting Diode (LED), Suspension of Operations (SoO) important for both preliminary and main exams? Discover more insights in the UPSC Exam Notes for September 15, 2025 |
For Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international Significance
For Mains Examination: GS II - Indian Polity & Governance
Context:
The Right to Information (RTI) Act is founded on the principle that in a democracy, which is defined as “rule of the people, by the people, for the people”, all information held by the government inherently belongs to the citizens. The government acts as a custodian of this information on behalf of the populace. Citizens legitimise their representatives by electing them, who in turn legitimise the bureaucracy. Therefore, the default mode under the RTI is that all information must be shared with citizens.
Read about:
Right to Information (RTI) Act
Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act
Key takeaways:
- The Right to Information (RTI) Act is built on the idea that in a democracy—defined as governance “of the people, by the people, for the people”—government-held information ultimately belongs to citizens.
- The State only safeguards this information on their behalf. Since citizens validate representatives through elections, and those representatives in turn authorize the bureaucracy, the natural principle of the RTI law is that information must ordinarily be disclosed to the public.
- At the same time, the Act recognized the need for certain exemptions, especially in areas such as national security. Among these, Section 8(1)(j) on “personal information” was crucial.
- The original clause carefully balanced transparency with individual privacy: information could be withheld if it was unrelated to public activity or amounted to an unreasonable intrusion into personal life, unless wider public interest required disclosure.
- A key safeguard in the original section was the proviso stating that any information which cannot be withheld from Parliament or a State legislature also cannot be denied to citizens.
- This acted as a guiding principle for Public Information Officers (PIOs) in differentiating between public and private domains, a task made complex by the evolving notion of “privacy” (as even acknowledged in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India case).
- Typically, information collected by the government during normal duties was not seen as an invasion of privacy and was meant to be shared unless it offended constitutional restrictions under Article 19(2), which only mentions “decency” and “morality” in relation to privacy.
- The situation has changed drastically with the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j). The revised version reduces the provision to just six words, allowing much broader grounds for withholding information. The biggest concern lies in how “personal information” is to be interpreted.
- Two contrasting interpretations exist. One is the narrow view, where “person” refers to a natural individual. The other, drawn from the DPDP Act, defines “person” far more widely to include companies, associations, Hindu Undivided Families, firms, and even the State.
- If this broader definition is applied, nearly all information could qualify as “personal”, effectively turning RTI into a “Right to Deny Information” (RDI). This undermines the very essence of transparency.
- Complicating matters, the DPDP Act contains an overriding clause that supersedes other laws, coupled with hefty penalties—up to ₹250 crore—for violations. This creates a chilling effect for PIOs, who, fearing punitive action, will be more inclined to deny requests rather than risk disclosure. In practice, this shifts the balance decisively towards secrecy.
- The implications for accountability and anti-corruption efforts are severe. First, it erodes citizens’ ability to monitor corruption—often more effectively than formal institutions like vigilance commissions or the Lokpal.
- Second, it could result in essent