Supreme Court Takes Up Petitions on RTI Act Amendments, Rejects Stay Plea
The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, agreed to adjudicate three public interest litigation (PIL) petitions that allege recent amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, have significantly weakened the transparency legislation. The petitioners argue that the changes provide authorities with a broad handle to deny information by classifying it as "personal," thereby rendering the RTI Act toothless. However, the court firmly turned down the plea for an immediate stay on the provision in the DPDP Act that prioritizes the right to privacy over the right to information.
Legal Arguments and Court's Stance
Senior advocates A M Singhvi, Vrinda Grover, and counsel Prashant Bhushan, representing the three PIL petitioners, presented their case before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi. They contended that while the original RTI Act exempted personal information only when it had no correlation with an individual's public activity, the current amendment, via the DPDP Act, now bars all "information which relates to personal matters." This shift, they asserted, creates a loophole that could be exploited to withhold crucial data from the public domain.
The bench acknowledged the complexity of the issue, stating it would examine the petitioners' concerns while emphasizing the need to balance the right to privacy with the right to information. "To some extent, it is a complex, sensitive yet interesting issue which needs balancing," the bench remarked. In a decisive move, it rejected Bhushan's request for a stay on the amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, indicating that a thorough review is necessary before any interim relief can be considered.
Petitioners' Concerns and Historical Context
One of the NGO petitioners highlighted the significance of the unamended Section 8(1)(j), describing it as not merely a statutory exception but a legislatively mandated proportionality mechanism. This provision exempted personal information only in cases where disclosure bore no relationship to any public activity or interest, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Even then, it required disclosure if larger public interest justified it. The petitioners fear that the new amendment strips away this nuanced approach, potentially undermining accountability and transparency in governance.
The court's decision to hear the petitions without granting a stay reflects a cautious approach to a contentious legal battle that pits individual privacy rights against the public's right to know. As the case progresses, it is expected to set important precedents for how India navigates the delicate interplay between data protection and open governance in the digital age.
