Skip to main content

RTI: Legal framework for privacy, data protection shouldn't be undermined


Joint statement by RTI and privacy activists on the amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act proposed by the Committee of Experts under the Chairpersonship of Justice BN Srikrishna:
***
The Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy (RTP) are fundamental rights flowing from the Indian Constitution. The State has an obligation to protect and promote both rights.
To strengthen democracy and constitutional freedoms, it is critical that the two rights be carefully balanced. The Justice Srikrishna Committee, tasked with drafting the Data Protection Bill, was therefore expected to develop a framework harmonizing the need to protect certain kinds of personal data with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which lays out the statutory framework for Indian citizens to access information, including personal information.
However, the Draft Data Protection Bill, 2018 (DPB) prepared by the committee, fails to safeguard and balance the two. If accepted, the amendments proposed to the RTI Act, 2005 through the DPB will severely restrict the scope of the RTI Act and adversely impact the ability of people to access information.
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 states:
“8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
xxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:”
However, the exemption is not absolute and information has be disclosed if it is such that cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature (proviso to 8(1)), if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests (section 8(2)) or if the information relates to any event or matter which has taken place twenty years ago (section 8(3)).
The Justice Srikrishna Committee has proposed that Section 8(1)(j) be amended to read as follows:
“8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
xxx
(j) information which relates to personal data which is likely to cause harm to a data principal, where such harm outweighs the public interest in accessing such information having due regard to the common good of promoting transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authority;
Provided, disclosure of information under this clause shall be notwithstanding anything contained in the Personal Data Protection Act, 2018;
Provided further, that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section, the terms “personal data” , “data principal” and “harm” shall have the meaning assigned to these terms in the Personal Data Protection Act, 2018.”
Currently, in order to invoke section 8(1)(j) to deny personal information, atleast one of the following grounds has to be proven – information sought has no relationship to any public activity; or information sought has no relationship to any public interest; or information sought would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy and PIO/appellate authority is satisfied that there is no larger public interest that justifies disclosure.
By replacing this with the proposed formulation that personal information would be exempt if it can be shown that disclosure is likely to cause harm and such harm outweighs public interest, the DPB seeks to severely curb the disclosure of information. It is crucial to note that the proposed amendments refer to a mere possibility of harm, rather than a reasonable certainty.
Further, the definition of the term “harm” which is sought to be applied to section 8 of the RTI law, is very broad. This would have a chilling effect on the RTI Act. The term “harm” is defined as
“(i) bodily or mental injury; (ii) loss, distortion or theft of identity; (iii) financial loss or loss of property, (iv) loss of reputation, or humiliation; (v) loss of employment; (vi) any discriminatory treatment (vii) any subjection to blackmail or extortion; (viii) any denial or withdrawal of a service, benefit or good resulting from an evaluative decision about the data principal; (ix) any restriction placed or suffered directly or indirectly on speech, movement or any other action arising out of a fear of being observed or surveilled; or (x) any observation or surveillance that is not reasonably expected by the data principal.”
Finally, the scope of the public interest test within the proposed section 8(1)(j) appears to have been narrowed, by restricting it primarily to the promotion of transparency and accountability in the functioning of a public authority, as opposed to a more expansive understanding of public interest in terms of upholding constitutional values of social justice, welfare and democratic rights of citizens.
The proposal to amend the RTI Act through the Data Protection Bill, 2018 appears to have been hastily drafted based on an incorrect understanding of the RTI law. For instance, the Justice Srikrishna committee seems to have erred in interpreting the proviso to section 8(1), which states that “information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”, as being only applicable to section 8(1)(j) and not to the whole of section 8(1).
A perusal of the original gazette notification of the RTI Act shows that by virtue of its placement and indentation, it is applicable to all of section 8(1) and not merely section 8(1)(j). There are several judicial pronouncements to this effect.
The amendments proposed to the Right to Information Act, 2005 through the Data Protection Bill, 2018 drafted by the Justice Srikrishna Committee will fundamentally weaken the RTI Act for the reasons highlighted above.
It is pertinent to note that since the constitution of the Justice Srikrishna Committee, many of us have highlighted our concerns related to the lack of diversity in the composition  of the committee and also the lack of transparency in the functioning of the committee. Proper composition of the committee and transparency in its functioning were crucial to ensure that a robust regime for data protection was created without undermining peoples’ right to information.
We believe that the legal framework for privacy and data protection should complement the RTI Act and in no way undermine or dilute the existing statutory framework that empowers citizens to hold power structures to account. The provisions of the Draft Data Protection Bill need to be suitably amended and harmonized with the provisions and objectives of the RTI Act.
This would be in line with the recommendation of the Justice A.P. Shah Report on Privacy (2012) that:
“The Privacy Act should clarify that publication of personal data for in public interest, use of personal information for household purposes, and disclosure of information as required by the Right to Information Act should not constitute an infringement of Privacy.”
Neither the recognition of the Right to Privacy, nor the enactment of a data protection law, requires any amendment to the existing RTI law. We, therefore, reject the amendments proposed to the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the Data Protection Bill, 2018 drafted by the Justice Srikrishna Committee.
---
Endorsed by: Anjali Bhardwaj, Venkatesh Nayak, Nikhil Dey, Rakesh Dubbudu, Pankti Jog, Pradip Pradan, Dr. Shaikh, Ashish Ranjan, Nachiket Udupa, Amrita Johri, Rakshita Swamy and Sai Vinod
(on behalf of the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI); Raman Jit Singh Chima, Vrinda Bhandari, Naman M. Aggarwal, Gautam Bhatia, Apar Gupta, Prasanna S., Praavita and Ujwala Uppaluri (On behalf of Save Our Privacy)

Comments

TRENDING

'Modi govt's assault on dissent': Foreign funds of top finance NGO blocked

By Rajiv Shah  In a surprise move, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, has cancelled the foreign funding license of the well-known advocacy group, Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), known for critically examining India's finance and banking sectors from human rights and environmental angle.

Misleading ads 'manipulate, seduce, lure' to market unhealthy harmful food

By Our Representative  The Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPI) in its new report “50 Shades of Food Advertising” has sought to expose how seductive, luring, manipulative or deceptive these advertisements can be. Consequences of such advertising are increased intake of unhealthy food products that is associated with obesity and diabetes, it says. 

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Why's Govt of India reluctant to consider battery storage system for renewal energy?

By Shankar Sharma*  If having so many small size battery energy storage system (BESS) at different locations of the grid, as in the report from Australia (a portfolio of 27 small battery storage projects across three Australian states that will total arounds 270 MWh), is considered to be techno-economically attractive in a commercially driven market such as Australia, the question that becomes a lot more relevance to Indian scenario is: why are our planners not in favour of installing such small size BESS at most of the distribution sub-stations not only to accelerate the addition of RE power capacities, but also to minimise the need for large size solar/ wind power parks, dedicated transmission lines and pumped storage plants; which will also minimise the associated technical losses.

'Failure of governance': India, China account for 54% pollution-related deaths globally

By Vikas Parsaram Meshram*   A recent report jointly prepared by UNICEF and the independent research organization Health Effects Institute has been released, and the statistics within it are alarming. It states that in 2021, air pollution caused the deaths of 2.1 million Indians, including 169,000 children who hadn't yet fully experienced life. These figures are indeed distressing and raise questions about why there hasn't been more serious effort in this direction, putting policymakers to shame. 

New MVA-INDIA MPs asked to raise Maharashtra milk farmers' demand

By Our Representative  All-India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) national president Dr Ashok Dhawale and AIKS Maharashtra general secretary Dr Ajit Nawale have asked three newly-elected MPs of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA-INDIA) from the milk belt of Maharashtra Dr Amol Kolhe (NCP),  Bhausaheb Wakchaure (SS), and Nilesh Lanke (NCP), to take up the cause of milk farmers of Maharashtra in Parliament.  After congratulating them on their resounding victory over their BJP-NDA rivals, the AIKS leaders apprised them of the milk farmers struggle which is intensifying in the state under the leadership of the AIKS and the Milk Farmers Joint Struggle Committee, and requested them to support it. All three MPs agreed not only to support, but also to take the initiative in this struggle, an official AIKS communique claimed. Farmers in Maharashtra are currently getting as low as Rs 24-27 per litre for cow milk, which is being sold in the market for Rs 56-60 per litre, the AIKS leaders noted. The low price to farmer