In a democracy, transparency is the foundation of accountable governance. India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, was a landmark law that empowered citizens to demand information from public authorities, exposing corruption and ensuring accountability. However, since its enactment, more than 84 RTI activists and whistle-blowers have lost their lives in attacks allegedly by those they had exposed. In recent years, the government has further weakened the RTI Act through amendments, delays in processing requests, and excessive denials, undermining its effectiveness.
The most recent blow comes from the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, which severely restricts access to public information by allowing the government to withhold crucial data under the pretext of ‘data protection.’ This move is not just a bureaucratic adjustment – it is part of a larger pattern of rising authoritarianism, where transparency is deliberately curtailed to shield those in power.
RTI: From Transparency Tool to Target
The RTI Act, 2005, was a game-changer for governance in India. It gave every citizen the legal right to seek information from government departments, ensuring transparency in public administration. Over the years, RTI activists have exposed major corruption scandals, including:
Commonwealth Games Scam (2005-2011): An RTI application exposed how the Commonwealth Games scam in Delhi involved corruption and misuse of funds around 70000 crores, by both Delhi and Central government officials. Inflated contracts and embezzlement led to significant financial losses and damaged the Games’ integrity.
2G Scam (2007-2008): The 2007-08 2G spectrum scam, uncovered through RTI, involved the illegal allocation of spectrum, causing an estimated loss of Rs. 1.76 lakh crore to the government. This major abuse of power led to charges against 17 individuals, including former Telecom Minister A Raja.
The Adarsh Housing Scam (2008): RTI revealed that flats meant for Kargil war widows were illegally allotted to politicians and bureaucrats in a corrupt real estate deal.
The Vyapam Scam (2013): A massive recruitment and admission fraud in Madhya Pradesh was uncovered through RTI queries, exposing large-scale corruption in government exams and job appointments.
Demonetisation (2016): RTI revealed that Prime Minister Modi implemented demonetisation without the formal approval of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The RBI’s central board approved the move 38 days after the announcement, raising concerns about the decision-making process.
Loan Fraud Cases (2017-2022): Over the past five years, more than 23,000 cases of loan fraud involving Rs. 1 lakh crore were reported by banks, with a significant surge observed in 2017-2018, as disclosed through RTI.
The Electoral Bonds Scheme (2018 to present): RTI activists revealed how large anonymous donations were being made to political parties, raising concerns about crony capitalism and lack of transparency in political funding.
The PM CARES Fund (2020): RTI activists attempted to uncover details about this fund, but the government refused, claiming it was not a public authority under RTI – a clear evasion of transparency.
Despite these successes, the government has been systematically weakening the RTI framework. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, was the first major blow, giving the government control over the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners, making them vulnerable to political pressure.
The DPDP Act: A Threat to Transparency
The DPDP Act, introduced under the pretext of protecting personal data, has become a legislative weapon against transparency. While privacy is a fundamental right, the Act prioritises secrecy over accountability, raising serious concerns:
Government Exemptions from RTI
The Act allows the government to exempt public authorities from RTI obligations, significantly limiting access to crucial information. Information related to corruption, policy decisions, and government spending can now be withheld under the pretext of ‘data protection.’
Broad Definition of ‘Personal Data’
The Act expands ‘personal data’ to include nearly all information about an individual, including government officials. Basic details such as salaries, property ownership, and financial transactions of public officials can now be denied, preventing accountability.
Increased Rejections of RTI Requests
Authorities can now reject RTI requests, citing ‘sensitive personal data,’ making it easier to conceal financial records, contracts, and decision-making processes. Journalists and whistle-blowers, who rely heavily on RTI for investigative work, will face greater barriers in exposing corruption.
Discretionary Powers and Lack of Safeguards
- The DPDP Act empowers authorities with vast exemptions, particularly under Sections 16 and 17, which allow the processing of personal data without consent for vague reasons such as the ‘prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any offence.’
- Section 35: Grants blanket immunity to the government for actions taken ‘in good faith,’ eliminating clear accountability mechanisms.
- Section 40: Enables the government to frame rules without legislative oversight, allowing unilateral control over information disclosure.
Federalism at Risk
The DPDP Act also raises federalism concerns by concentrating regulatory authority with the central government, sidelining state governments in data governance. The Centre’s power to create rules that override state-level transparency norms could further weaken the democratic accountability mechanisms embedded in the RTI Act. By prioritising executive discretion over public interest, the Act effectively insulates the government from scrutiny, undermining the spirit of decentralised governance.
Balancing the Right to Privacy and the Right to Information
The Right to Privacy and the Right to Information must be carefully balanced. The Supreme Court’s 2017 Puttaswamy judgment upheld privacy as a fundamental right while recognising the need for transparency in governance. The RTI Act already had safeguards to protect sensitive personal data while ensuring public access to crucial information. However, the DPDP Act disrupts this balance, granting the government broad powers to withhold information under the guise of privacy, tilting the scales toward secrecy and reducing accountability.
Surveillance and Crackdown on Dissent:
The government is increasingly using laws like UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) and sedition laws to silence activists, students, and journalists. Digital surveillance has also expanded, forcing social media platforms to comply with government demands for content removal.
A Tool for Centralisation of Power
The DPDP Act goes beyond restricting public access to information; it centralises power within the executive and shields corporate elites from scrutiny. By allowing the government to exempt any entity from data protection regulations, the Act enables selective protection for favoured corporations while targeting critics. This benefits big businesses engaged in controversial deals, electoral bond donations, and public-private partnerships, allowing them to conceal financial dealings and lobbying activities.
With a history of favouring select industrialists through opaque contracts, crony capitalism, and corporate bailouts, the government now has a legal cover to keep such transactions hidden, further strengthening the nexus between political power and economic elites while depriving citizens of the means to hold them accountable.
The Larger Shift Towards Authoritarianism
India’s democracy is under serious threat. The erosion of RTI and the introduction of secrecy laws like the DPDP Act are classic signs of an authoritarian regime:
- Restricting Press Freedom: Critical media voices are being silenced through raids, lawsuits, and advertising bans.
- Judicial Interference: The government is increasingly influencing judicial appointments and verdicts.
- Digital Authoritarianism: Increased state surveillance, censorship, and internet shutdowns are being used to control public discourse.
- Criminalisation of Dissent: Peaceful protests are being met with police brutality and draconian laws.
Why the DPDP Act Must Be Rolled Back
If the government is truly committed to democracy and transparency, it must Roll Back the DPDP Act to:
Strengthen and Protect the RTI Act: Remove excessive government exemptions, restore the independence of Information Commissions, and ensure timely processing of RTI applications to uphold transparency and accountability.
Ensure Judicial Independence: Stop executive interference in judicial appointments and decision-making.
Protect Press Freedom: Stop the harassment of journalists and media houses reporting on government accountability.
Uphold Civil Liberties: Prevent the misuse of sedition laws and UAPA against activists and political opponents.
The Fight for Transparency and Accountability Must Go On
The RTI Act was a hard-won victory for Indian democracy, built on the principles of accountability and public empowerment. Its dilution through the DPDP Act and other restrictive measures is not just a policy shift – it is a dangerous march towards authoritarianism. If citizens fail to resist, India risks becoming a nation where corruption thrives in darkness, dissent is silenced by force, and democracy is reduced to a mere façade.
This is a battle that cannot be fought in silence. Civil society, journalists, activists, and the judiciary must come together to demand the rollback of the DPDP Act and defend the people’s right to information. Transparency is not just a democratic ideal; it is the very lifeblood of a free and just society. Its erosion must be met with unwavering resistance – because once the right to know is lost, so is the power to hold rulers accountable.
[The writer is Assistant Secretary, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind]