The Crossbill News Desk
Senior Congress leader and MP Jairam Ramesh has once again written to Union Electronics and IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, urging the government to “pause, review, and repeal” Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which amends the landmark Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
In his letter dated April 13, Ramesh termed the amendment as an “RTI-destroying” provision, alleging that it grants a blanket exemption to the disclosure of personal information, thereby severely undermining transparency and public accountability.
The Congress MP’s renewed appeal comes in response to Minister Vaishnaw’s earlier reply on April 10, which was itself a response to Ramesh’s first letter dated March 23.
Vaishnaw defended the amendment, stating that it does not restrict disclosure of personal information but rather seeks to bolster individual privacy rights.
He cited Section 3 of the DPDP Act, which allows the disclosure of personal data where mandated under existing laws.
“Section 3 of the DPDP Act will now only protect disclosures as per the amended RTI Act, which exempts all personal information from being accessible,” Ramesh wrote in the letter.
He pointed out that the original RTI Act had adequate safeguards in place, with courts repeatedly upholding the withholding of personal data when it lacked any public interest or relation to public activity.
“Second, the operation of the RTI Act, 2005 – informed by several judgments by the Supreme Court and various high courts – has demonstrated that the law is able to withhold the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest,” he added.
“Third, the deletion of the proviso in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which recognises the citizens’ right to information as being at par with that of legislators is completely unwarranted,” Ramesh asserted, noting that this proviso applied to all exemptions under Section 8(1), not just the one related to personal data.
He also challenged Vaishnaw’s reference to the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy judgment, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right. Ramesh argued that the judgment did not suggest amending the RTI Act, and in fact affirmed that privacy and transparency can coexist.
Ramesh’s letter came shortly after MPs of the INDIA bloc held a press conference on April 10, where they collectively demanded the repeal of Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, describing it as having a “draconian impact” on citizen rights and press freedom.
Also read: Opposition MPs Demands Repeal of Section 44(3) of DPDP Act, Citing Threat to RTI and Press Freedom
Transparency activists have also criticised the amendment. Venkatesh Nayak, a prominent RTI campaigner, said the government’s interpretation of Section 3 as a standalone provision is flawed, as it must be read alongside Section 44(3), which effectively converts Section 8(1)(j) into a categorical bar on accessing personal data.
Reiterating his call, Ramesh concluded his letter by urging the Union minister to reconsider the amendment, stating: “Please do remember that nowhere in this judgment is it mentioned that the RTI Act, 2005 itself needs to be amended. The judgment reinforces that safeguarding personal privacy and promoting institutional transparency are not mutually exclusive but are jointly essential.”
The ongoing debate signals a growing concern among opposition leaders and civil society groups that the DPDP Act’s amendments to the RTI law may roll back years of progress on transparency and accountability in governance.
In his letter dated April 13, Ramesh termed the amendment as an “RTI-destroying” provision, alleging that it grants a blanket exemption to the disclosure of personal information, thereby severely undermining transparency and public accountability.
The Congress MP’s renewed appeal comes in response to Minister Vaishnaw’s earlier reply on April 10, which was itself a response to Ramesh’s first letter dated March 23.
Vaishnaw defended the amendment, stating that it does not restrict disclosure of personal information but rather seeks to bolster individual privacy rights.
He cited Section 3 of the DPDP Act, which allows the disclosure of personal data where mandated under existing laws.
“Section 3 of the DPDP Act will now only protect disclosures as per the amended RTI Act, which exempts all personal information from being accessible,” Ramesh wrote in the letter.
He pointed out that the original RTI Act had adequate safeguards in place, with courts repeatedly upholding the withholding of personal data when it lacked any public interest or relation to public activity.
“Second, the operation of the RTI Act, 2005 – informed by several judgments by the Supreme Court and various high courts – has demonstrated that the law is able to withhold the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest,” he added.
“Third, the deletion of the proviso in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which recognises the citizens’ right to information as being at par with that of legislators is completely unwarranted,” Ramesh asserted, noting that this proviso applied to all exemptions under Section 8(1), not just the one related to personal data.
He also challenged Vaishnaw’s reference to the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy judgment, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right. Ramesh argued that the judgment did not suggest amending the RTI Act, and in fact affirmed that privacy and transparency can coexist.
Ramesh’s letter came shortly after MPs of the INDIA bloc held a press conference on April 10, where they collectively demanded the repeal of Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, describing it as having a “draconian impact” on citizen rights and press freedom.
Also read: Opposition MPs Demands Repeal of Section 44(3) of DPDP Act, Citing Threat to RTI and Press Freedom
Transparency activists have also criticised the amendment. Venkatesh Nayak, a prominent RTI campaigner, said the government’s interpretation of Section 3 as a standalone provision is flawed, as it must be read alongside Section 44(3), which effectively converts Section 8(1)(j) into a categorical bar on accessing personal data.
Reiterating his call, Ramesh concluded his letter by urging the Union minister to reconsider the amendment, stating: “Please do remember that nowhere in this judgment is it mentioned that the RTI Act, 2005 itself needs to be amended. The judgment reinforces that safeguarding personal privacy and promoting institutional transparency are not mutually exclusive but are jointly essential.”
The ongoing debate signals a growing concern among opposition leaders and civil society groups that the DPDP Act’s amendments to the RTI law may roll back years of progress on transparency and accountability in governance.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment