The Hindu Editorial Analysis
13 September 2025
The RTI’s Shift to a ‘Right to Deny Information’
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 14)
Topic : GS Paper II – Governance | GS Paper IV – Ethics
Context
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowered citizens by making government accountable and transparent. However, recent changes proposed through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and its interaction with Section 8(1)(j) of RTI may transform the RTI into a tool of denial rather than disclosure, raising concerns about privacy versus transparency.
Key Issues and Arguments
1. Original Vision of RTI
- RTI was built on the idea that democracy is rule by the people, for the people, with government holding information on behalf of citizens.
- Section 8(1)(j) exempted only personal information when its disclosure was an unwarranted invasion of privacy or had no link to public interest.
- Importantly, if information had to be given to Parliament/State Legislature, it could not be denied to ordinary citizens.
2. DPDP Act and Ambiguity
- The DPDP Act redefines “personal information” broadly, making disclosure harder.
- Ambiguity arises because:
- “Person” includes families, associations, and even the State.
- If interpreted widely, almost everything could be deemed “personal,” undermining RTI.
- This risks creating a “right to deny information”, allowing bureaucrats to reject disclosures citing privacy.
3. Consequences of the Shift
- Nearly 90% of RTI rejections already rely on “personal information.” The DPDP could formalize and expand this trend.
- Danger: corruption and arbitrariness may flourish if accountability is weakened.
- Example: Government officers’ service details, transfers, or corruption inquiries could be withheld under the guise of personal information.
Policy Gaps Identified
| Area | Issues Emerging |
|---|---|
| RTI Exemptions | Over-broad definition of personal info risks misuse. |
| Public Interest Clause | Burden on citizens to prove “larger public interest.” |
| DPDP–RTI Overlap | No clarity on precedence, leading to bureaucratic discretion. |
| Transparency Mechanisms | Weakening disclosure reduces accountability in corruption cases. |
Way Forward
- Narrow and Precise Definitions
- Redefine “personal information” narrowly, ensuring public interest remains primary.
- Strengthen Public Interest Clause
- Make disclosure the rule, exemption the exception.
- Institutional Safeguards
- CICs and courts must guard against misuse by over-zealous application of privacy exemptions.
- Public Pressure and Awareness
- Civil society must push to prevent the dilution of RTI through campaigns and legal challenges.
- Ethical Dimension
- Transparency is not just a legal right but an ethical cornerstone of democracy, ensuring accountability and moral responsibility of public servants.
Conclusion
The RTI’s transformation into a ‘right to deny’ would undermine India’s democratic gains of the past two decades. Citizens’ ability to question power is the essence of democracy, and diluting RTI through overbroad privacy provisions risks silencing accountability. Safeguarding RTI is essential not only for governance but also for ethical legitimacy of the state.