Communications minister Ashwini Vaishnaw has argued that the right to privacy encompasses all individuals, including “public servants”, and the draft digital personal data protection bill (DPDP), which has sought amendments in the Right to Information Act (RTI) 2025, seeks to resolve the conflict between the two.
Responding to stakeholder apprehensions that the DPDP bill would substantially dilute the RTI Act, which empowered the common citizens of the country, Vaishnaw said, “RTI amendment is natural because the right to privacy is for all individuals. And that includes public servants also. So the conflict between RTI and DPDP has to be resolved.”
Vaishnaw also allayed the fears of stakeholders that the proposed Data Protection Board of India, which is to be formed to ensure compliance and impose fines in case of violations, would be toothless as its chairman and members will be appointed by the Centre. Vaishnaw, however, says, “The law ensures independence. Appointments by the government are done for so many institutions. That does not reduce their independence in any way. The board’s decision can be challenged in the High Court. That further ensures independence.”
Stakeholders, however, have raised questions on the attempt by the bill to amend the RTI Act. Under the RTI Act, several exemptions were given to individuals from disclosing information.
One crucial clause (Clause j, subsection 1 of section 8) of the RTI Act provides an exemption in cases where “the disclosure of information which has no relationship to public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer of 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.” Under the privacy bill, this proviso for exemption, which still allows the top information officers to take the final call, has now been deleted.
Activists argue that even under the current RTI Act, the various available exemptions were being used to deny information. One of the common clauses used was clause j. Now even this proviso has been removed, substantially weakening the RTI Act. They argue that in a democracy, the government is appointed by the people and they, in turn, appoint government servants who are answerable to them. RTI was one key weapon to do so.
Corporates are also apprehensive about the stiff fines of up to Rs 250 crore for each instance, which have been imposed under the draft bill. “At one level it will act as a big deterrence. But for small and medium-sized companies it could kill them. We will petition the government for a reduction,” says a senior executive of a medium-sized company.
