LawChakra

Opposition Slams Data Protection Law as Blow to RTI, Government Defends It Citing Supreme Court Ruling

A political storm has erupted over the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, with the Opposition alleging it dilutes the Right to Information Act and threatens democratic accountability.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Opposition Slams Data Protection Law as Blow to RTI, Government Defends It Citing Supreme Court Ruling

NEW DELHI: A political face-off erupted on Thursday over the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, with the Opposition INDIA bloc accusing the government of undermining democratic transparency and citizens’ rights by enacting provisions that allegedly gut the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

At the heart of the controversy is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act. The Opposition claims that this clause essentially overrides Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005—a safeguard that permitted the disclosure of personal information when it served a larger public interest. They argue that this critical balancing test has now been erased, paving the way for the withholding of key information under the blanket excuse of privacy.

Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, in a strongly worded letter to Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, stated that

“the provision “destroys the RTI Act” and called for a pause, review, and eventual repeal of Section 44(3)

Addressing a press conference in New Delhi, senior Opposition leaders, including Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi and Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi, expressed deep concern about the chilling effect this provision could have on press freedom, especially investigative journalism, and on citizens’ access to public-interest information.

Gogoi emphasized that more than 120 MPs, including prominent leaders such as Rahul Gandhi, Lalu Prasad Yadav, and Akhilesh Yadav, have signed a petition demanding immediate amendments to the law. He accused the government of acting unilaterally by imposing laws that restrict rights rather than protect them.

“Section 44(3) effectively replaces a vital transparency clause in the RTI Act, giving the government the power to block personal information requests without assessing whether public interest is served,”

Gogoi said.

“This is a serious erosion of democratic accountability.”

Priyanka Chaturvedi echoed these concerns, describing the Act as a

“four-pronged assault on press freedom”

and raising alarm over the centralized structure of the Data Protection Board, which she argued could become a tool for government overreach, allowing authorities to control the flow of information unilaterally.

In a show of solidarity, leaders from DMK, CPM, SP, and RJD also joined the protest. Among those present at the press briefing were MM Abdulla (DMK), John Brittas (CPM), Javed Ali Khan (Samajwadi Party), and Naval Kishor (RJD), all of whom pledged to resist any move that dilutes citizens’ right to information.

In response to the outcry, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw defended the DPDP Act, asserting that it is fully aligned with the privacy principles laid down in the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. He maintained that the law does not contradict the RTI Act but complements it by reinforcing individual privacy rights in the digital age.

Vaishnaw further clarified that

“information required to be disclosed under legal obligations—particularly data relating to public servants, elected representatives, and welfare programs like MGNREGA—will still be accessible under the RTI framework”

“The DPDP Act is designed to safeguard personal data and ensure accountability in its processing. It does not dilute transparency but enhances the right to privacy while maintaining public interest disclosures,”

Vaishnaw posted on social media platform X.

As the debate escalates, the core question remains:

Can India strike a balance between protecting individual privacy and upholding the spirit of transparency that the RTI Act was meant to guarantee?

FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE

Exit mobile version