Privacy vs. Transparency
Privacy vs. Transparency
Context
A significant constitutional friction emerged between the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. This conflict centers on where a citizen's right to know ends and an individual's right to digital privacy begins.
The Core Conflict
The tension arises from two landmark legislations with opposing objectives:
- Transparency (RTI): Aims to make the government accountable by providing citizens access to information.
- Privacy (DPDP): Aims to protect the personal data of individuals from unauthorized disclosure or processing.
Legislative Framework: Before vs. After
The DPDP Act has fundamentally altered how public authorities handle information requests involving personal data.
|
Feature |
RTI Act (Original Section 8(1)(j)) |
DPDP Act (Amended Section 44(3)) |
|
Standard |
Allowed disclosure of personal information if it had a larger public interest or related to public activity. |
Strictly prohibits the sharing of personal information regardless of public interest. |
|
Discretion |
Public Information Officers (PIOs) could balance privacy against the public's need to know. |
Removes discretionary power; personal data is now a "blanket" exemption. |
|
Accountability |
Citizens could verify beneficiary lists, salaries, and assets of public officials. |
Public offices can now deny these details, citing the protection of personal data. |
Key Concerns & Challenges
- Dilution of RTI: Critics argue that by amending Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act via the DPDP Act, the government has created a "legal shield" against scrutiny.
- Corruption Risk: Information regarding government recruitment, social security beneficiaries (like MGNREGA), and public official conduct may become inaccessible, making it harder to spot "ghost beneficiaries" or nepotism.
- The "Personal Information" Excuse: Public offices may use the broad definition of personal data to deny legitimate and necessary information that is vital for administrative transparency.
- Judicial Stand: The Supreme Court (e.g., in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case) held that both rights are fundamental. However, the current "blanket" restriction in the DPDP Act is seen by many as disproportionate.
Way Forward
- Harmonization: The law should be interpreted to distinguish between "private" personal data (home addresses, medical records) and "public" personal data (names of project beneficiaries, official expenses).
- Public Interest Override: Re-introducing a "Public Interest Test" within the DPDP framework to ensure that transparency is not sacrificed for secrecy.
- Independent Oversight: Empowering the Data Protection Board and the Information Commissions to work together to resolve disputes regarding data disclosure.
- Anonymization: Public authorities can adopt technology to provide data in an anonymized format, satisfying the need for transparency while protecting individual identities.
Conclusion
The balance between privacy and transparency is not a zero-sum game. While protecting digital data is crucial in the 21st century, it should not become a tool for administrative opacity. A robust democracy requires a fine-tuned legal mechanism that respects individual dignity without blinding the eyes of the public.