The Right To Information Act is for the citizen’s fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a) and was transforming India’s elective democracy into a participatory democracy. The RTI Act is one of the best transparency laws in the world.
RTI empowers the citizens and is a practical recognition of their role as rulers and owners of India.
It is the outcome of people’s struggles led by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan’s struggles starting in rural Rajasthan which culminate in the drafting of the law in 2004.
There were intense discussions about its provisions and it took an all-party parliamentary committee to carefully craft its provisions.
RTI’s preamble elegantly states that democracy requires informed citizens and transparency in the affairs of their government so that they can hold it accountable and curb corruption.
It harmonise the need for an efficient government while preserving the ideals of democracy.
The RTI Act is one of the most empowering legislations for the citizens of India.
RTI act has been of great help to every segment of society from the most disempower to the powerful to obtain relevant information and protect their rights.
It recognises that all information held by the government belongs to them, so they must have access to it.
It has built adequate safeguards under Section 8 (1) to protect harm to specific interests.
The 10 exemptions of Section 8 (1) have serve the nation well.
In about 18 years of working there has been no significant instance of harm to any specific interest which should have been protected.
Despite public officials using various devices to deny citizens their legitimate right, many have use this democratic instrument to expose wrongdoing and corruption.
Citizens using RTI can be our best vigilance monitors who can also get accountability from their public servants.
Governments and those wielding the levers of power have perturbe at this transfer of power to the ordinary citizens.
The most widely misuse exemption is Section 8 (1)(j) which exempts personal information which is not part of a public activity, or which is an invasion on the privacy of an individual.
It has a provison which is an acid test to help anyone claiming this exemption which states :
“Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature, shall not be denied to any person.”
So Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act states that personal information may be exempt if :
- It is not related to a public activity or interest or
- Would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual
To help an officer, information commissioner or judge to arrive at the right decision the special proviso was provide as an acid test.
Whoever claim that a disclosure was exempt under Section 8 (1)(j) should make a statement that he would not give this information to Parliament.
Many refusals of information did not adhere to the law but refuse information with a bland statement that since it was personal information they would not give it.
This was illegal but has widely use to cover arbitrary, corrupt or illegal acts of government officials.
For examples :
- Department of Personnel and Training refused “Total number of Annual Performance Appraisal reports of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers pending presently for over one year, two years, three years and four years” claiming exemption under Section 8 (1)(j)
- Request for details of member of legislative assembly (MLA) funds was denied saying it was personal information
- Details of beneficiaries of PM fund
- Bogus caste certificate, education certificates, ghost employees, gross arbitrariness and corruption in selections for jobs and non-conformance to rules and laws
- Disproportionate assets compared to declared income
- Verification of affidavits of elected representatives
- Unfair assessment of students and job seekers in government
- Disregard of proven corruption charges against officials
- File notings and minutes of meetings
However many honest officers and commissioners often gave information if it was not covere by the exemption.
Right To Information to Right to Deny Information
Section 44(3) of the Data Protection Bill amends the RTI Act Section 8 (1)(j).
With this amendment all information which can be related to a person could be legally denied.
Most information could be shown as being related to a person and hence the law would become a ‘Right to Deny Information’ for public information officers (PIOs) who do not wish to give information.
A PIO is an officer to whom people can make applications under the RTI Act and seek information.
This proposal is a tacit admission that any current denial of information on the grounds of it being ‘personal information’ only, was illegal.
Whenever a PIO wants to deny information, he will be able to link it to some person.
That is why RTI would become a RDI or Right to Deny Information, rendering it as an ineffective tool.
As per Section 38 (2) it will override all existing laws.
So it would override the RTI Act as well.
This will make it extremely difficult for an official to disclose information, since he would have to decide whether providing the information demanded is likely to run foul of the Data Protection Act.
Given the fact that the Data Protection Act has a provision for a maximum penalty of ₹250 crore for a breach, the normal action will be denial of information.
This appears to be a ‘Right to Deny Information‘ masquerading as a Digital Personal Data Protection bill.
