Skip to main content

Digital protection? Bill to 'severely restrict' people's ability to access information

Counterview Desk 

In a statement on the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023, introduced in the Lok Sabha, the advocacy group National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI), has said it is disappointed to note that the Bill continues to suffer from the problems pointed out by it earlier.
In its detailed analysis, NCPRI, endorsed by groups/campaigns working on privacy, had said, its submission had highlighted key issues including the regressive amendments being made to the RTI Act and the lack of independence and autonomy of the oversight agency -- the Data Protection Board.
“We are disappointed to note that on both counts, the government has failed to address the concerns”, it added.

Text:

The National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) is disappointed to note that the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 (DPDP Bill) introduced in the Lok Sabha today (3/8/2023) continues to suffer from the problems pointed out by NCPRI in the previous draft.
The NCPRI had sent a detailed analysis, which was also endorsed by groups/campaigns working on privacy, on the bill put out for public consultation by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) in November 2022. The submission had highlighted key issues including the regressive amendments being made to the RTI Act and the lack of independence and autonomy of the oversight body -- the Data Protection Board. We are disappointed to note that on both counts, the government has failed to address the concerns.
The submission had also highlighted the need to adopt an extensive and rigorous pre-legislative consultation process for the proposed DPDP Bill, including ensuring dissemination of the draft bill through various modes and in multiple languages. The consultative process continued to be extremely narrow and seems to have largely focussed on the concerns of industry. The NCPRI was not invited for any consultation following the submission.

Our key concerns with the DPDP Bill, 2023 introduced in Lok Sabha today are:

Amendments to the RTI Act (Section 44(3))

The amendments proposed to the RTI Act, 2005 through the DPDP Bill 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:”

The exemption is not absolute and information has to 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 draft DPDP Bill proposes the following amendments to the RTI Act-
“44(3) In section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in sub-section (1), for clause
“(j), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
“(j) information which relates to personal information;”.

The proposed amendment to section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act therefore seeks to exempt all personal information. It does away with the exceptions carved out within the section based on which personal information could have been disclosed. Currently, in order 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. The proposed blanket exemption is especially problematic since it does not limit the exemption from disclosure to only sensitive personal information.
Further, the proposal to amend the RTI Act through the Data Protection Bill appears to have been drafted based on an incorrect understanding of the RTI law. The draft Bill errs 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.
It is well established that access to granular information, including personal information, is critical to empower people to undertake collective monitoring and ensure they are able to access their rights and entitlements. This principle is well recognised and has been adopted in various welfare programs and schemes. The proposed Bill will potentially place impediments and restrictions on such public disclosures.
Legal framework for privacy and data protection should not undermine or dilute the existing statutory framework that empowers citizens
The amendments proposed to the Right to Information Act, 2005 through the Data Protection Bill, will fundamentally weaken the RTI Act for the reasons highlighted above. 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 … 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. Therefore, there should be no amendments to the RTI Act.

Excessive powers vested in Central government & lack of independence of the Data Protection Board

Given that the government is the biggest data repository, the law should not give wide discretionary powers to the executive. The DPDP Bill, 2023, however, empowers the government to draft rules and notifications on a vast range of issues (S. 40). The Union government can exempt any government or even private sector entity from the application of provisions of the law by merely issuing a notification, potentially resulting in immense violations of citizens’ privacy (S. 17(2) and 17(3)).
It is concerning to note the lack of autonomy of the Data Protection Board, the principal authority under the draft Bill to enforce compliance with the provisions of legislation. Section 19 of the bill vests in the Central Government wide powers, including appointing the Chairperson and members and deciding the strength of the Board. This lack of independence of the oversight mechanism is extremely worrying and it is imperative that such a board function without the interference of the Central Government to enable the protection of rights of people.
The creation of a Data Protection Board not adequately independent of the government, with powers to impose fines of up to Rs 250 crore (the central government can raise the maximum penalty imposable under the law to Rs. 500 crore by amending the schedule), raises apprehensions of potential misuse by the executive. (S. 28, S. 33 & S. 42)
The proposal that the Board will be ‘digital by design’, including in the receipt of complaints, pronouncement of decision and other functions, will make it exclusionary and outside the reach of millions of Indians.
---
Endorsed by: Anjali Bhardwaj, Nikhil Dey, Venkatesh Nayak, Rakesh Reddy Dubbudu, Pradip Pradhan, Pankti Jog, Dr. Shaikh, Shailesh Gandhi, Amrita Johri, Bhaskar Prabhu, Chakradhar Buddha, Ajay Jangid, Karuna M, Praveer Peter (on behalf of NCPRI) 

Comments

TRENDING

'Wedding of the century': What does Mukesh Ambani want to prove by such extravaganza?

By NS Venkataraman*  Mukesh  Ambani,   a renowned Indian industrialist who is said to be the richest person in India and  one of the richest persons in the world,   has just now conducted the wedding celebration of  his son in Mumbai,   with unheard level of lavishness in India.

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.

'28% rise in sedition cases': Top global NGO alliance rates India's civil space 'repressed'

By Rajiv Shah Rating India's civic space as repressed , Civicus, a global civil society alliance, in its new report submitted to the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) on the state of civic space in the country has said that the use of sedition law against the Modi government’s critics continues. "Under the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, sedition cases have increased by 28 per cent with over 500 cases against more than 7,000 people", it says.

'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.

How US is using Tibetans to provoke conflict with China 'ignoring' India

By Lobsang Tenzin*  On July 12, US President Joe Biden signed the Resolve Tibet Act, and Tibetans cheered for it, believing that the law promotes a resolution of the dispute between Tibet and China. Is this true? First, let's look at the issue of the ownership of Tibet. 

How embracing diversity enriched my life, brought profound sense of joy

By Mike Ghouse*  If you can shed the bias towards others, you'll love the connections with every human that God or his systems have created. This gives a sense of freedom and brings meaning and joy to life. Embracing and respecting how people dress, eat, and practice their beliefs becomes an enriching experience.

Post-poll mob lynching spree, bulldozer justice: NAPM seeks united resistance

Counterview Desk  Condemning what it calls "the horrific spree of mob lynchings across the country after the Lok Sabha election results", India's premier civil society network, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), has called for "united resistance" against "hateful communal politics, mob lynching of religious minorities and caste-based oppression".

Maharashtra govt's proposed bill may be used against 'dissenting' journalists, writers, filmmakers, artists

Counterview Desk  The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Maharashtra, strongly objecting to what it calls “repressive and unconstitutional” Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill 2024, has demanded the proposed law be scrapped in its entirety. In its Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Bill, PUCL noted,  the broad and non-descript label of ‘urban naxal’ has been used, which is actually a “common slur used for any citizen who expresses their opposition to state policy or is not aligned with right-wing majoritarian views."