In the RTI dilution row, activists and journalists have approached the Supreme Court of India against the Modi government’s privacy law, arguing it enables the withholding of crucial public information and undermines core constitutional principles of the nation.
Transparency campaigners and journalists have filed four petitions to India’s Supreme Court, challenging Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government over a new privacy statute. They argue the law will chill journalism and let authorities withhold information of public importance.
The cases are scheduled for hearing on March 23.
Critics say the reforms weaken the two-decade-old Right to Information (RTI) Act India’s equivalent of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and point to broader concerns about a tougher content-removal framework that they say stifles dissent.
The government rejects these claims, saying it removes only unlawful content and that the RTI continues to follow the principle of “maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions.”
The dispute centers on a brief amendment to the RTI that accompanied the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, effective since November. The amendment bars disclosure of any “personal information,” whereas the earlier law permitted release of such material when it served the “public interest.”
Petitioners contend the change should be struck down because it would let officials withhold critical, public-interest information and erode constitutional safeguards.
Anjali Bhardwaj, a leading transparency activist and one of the challengers, told Reuters the amendment could, for example, enable the government to block release of the names of contractors or officials tied to allegedly substandard projects.
The change is “a death knell for participatory democracy, and ruinous to ideas of open governance,” RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak wrote in his court submission, reviewed by Reuters.
India’s law ministry and the Department of Personnel and Training, which oversees the RTI Act, did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.
Last year, IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw told parliament the amendment would “not restrict the disclosure of personal information” and that it “balances individuals’ privacy rights with the right to information.”
Observers note India’s standing on transparency measures has slipped: the Canada-based Centre for Law and Democracy ranked it second in 2013 but currently places it ninth, citing, among other issues, broad exemptions for security agencies in the RTI. The privacy statute also imposes fines of up to $27 million on social media and tech companies that fail to comply, without carving out an exception for journalists.
Media organisations say the absence of a journalistic exemption means reporters would need to meet a consent requirement effectively seeking permission from every person or company discussed in a story.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Defers Verdict on DU’s RTI Case Over PM Modi’s Degree Records
Reporters Without Borders placed India 151st out of 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index last year, citing “violence against journalists, highly concentrated media ownership, and political alignment.” Two decades ago the country ranked 106th. New Delhi–based The Reporters’ Collective is among the petitioners, arguing in its filing that the law will obstruct effective reporting.
Britain and Australia provide exemptions for journalists in similar laws. Petitioners told the court the Indian measures would “force citizens and journalists to self-censor to avoid massive penalties.”
Such constitutional challenges typically take several months to reach a final decision.