Privacy bill could be sent to Attorney General for assessing RTI impact
Empower your mind, elevate your skills
India's proposed privacy bill—Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act—will be referred to the Attorney General of India R Venkataramani for an opinion on whether the much-awaited legislation violates the country's Right to Information (RTI) Act as alleged by opposition parties and members of civil society, people in the know said.The move may clear the clouds of uncertainty hovering over the legislation enacted by Parliament in August 2023, but which is not yet operational pending notification of its Rules.A draft of the proposed Rules was released for stakeholder consultation in January this year.At a meeting chaired by minister for electronics and IT, Ashwini Vaishnaw on Monday, the stalled Act, which bestows individuals with greater control over their personal data while also enabling responsible data processing practices, came up for discussion.'There are a couple of issues which need to be resolved,' a senior government official told ET.'It will be referred to the AG, but the government's view is that the DPDP Act doesn't dilute the RTI Act and amendment doesn't stop those seeking information under RTI to get access to it,' the official said.Minister Vaishnaw is expected to write to all the members of Parliament explaining the position.'Anyone accessing any information, be it about the MNREGA scheme or data about a farmer welfare scheme can do it without any issue through the RTI, " according to officials who said there are no restrictions for journalists seeking information either.There has been an outcry by the opposition, civil society over an amendment to the RTI Act's Section 8(1)(j) made through the DPDP Act, passed in 2023. It amended a section of the RTI Act, removing the earlier safeguard that allowed disclosure of personal information if it served public interest and did not amount to 'unwarranted' invasion of privacy.The amendment – allowing authorities to withhold any information containing personal details – restricts journalists, activists, lawyers, and others from accessing crucial information needed to hold governments accountable and expose corruption, members of the civil society have alleged.Officials who spoke to ET pointed out that the Rules are not being held in abeyance because of the outcry over the Act.'The Act was passed in 2023, where the RTI amendment was brought about, if there were concerns about it, they should have been raised then,' said people cited above.'The government is holding discussions about the Rules and keeping them ready while the political issue has to be resolved at the political level,' they added.The proposed legislation has also left out another provision that stated that "information which cannot be denied to the Parliament, or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person".On March 26, over 120 MPs from the INDIA bloc urged the repeal of Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, warning that it undermines the RTI Act by removing the public interest test in Section 8(1)(j).Shortly after, in response to a letter by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, Vaishnaw cited Section 3 of the DPDP Act and said that the RTI framework remains protected."The DPDP Act, as outlined in Section 3, provides exemptions for personal data that is 'made or caused to be made publicly available' by individuals or entities under legal obligations. This ensures transparency while maintaining the need for privacy," Vaishnaw had written in an April 10 letter to Jairam Ramesh.ET had reported on 22 March that more than 30 civil society organisations launched a campaign seeking the rollback of a provision in the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act that amended the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC tell school to re-admit autistic Class 1 girl student
The Delhi High Court has directed GD Goenka School to re-admit an eight-year-old autistic girl in Class 1, ruling that educational institutions are duty-bound to accommodate children with special needs under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The court said that inclusive education under the Act is not a symbolic ideal, but a legally enforceable right. (HT Archive) Justice Vikas Mahajan in a ruling delivered on Tuesday, criticised the school's failure to provide adequate support, observing that its actions amounted to a denial of the child's statutory right to inclusive education. The court said that inclusive education under the Act is not a symbolic ideal, but a legally enforceable right. 'No child can be deprived merely due to the institutional unwillingness to adapt. It needs no emphasis that 'inclusive education' is not merely about access to education; it is about belongingness. It is also about recognising that every child has a place in the classroom not because they are the same, but because they are different, and that difference enriches the learning environment for all,' the judge ruled. The girl was initially admitted to GD Goenka School in 2021. After being diagnosed with mild autism in 2022, her mother requested a shadow teacher or special educator to assist her. The school, however, failed to provide the necessary support, pressuring the family until they withdrew her in January 2023. In the 2024-25 session, she was again allotted a seat at GD Goenka under the children with special needs (CWSN) category, but the school refused admission. A subsequent allotment at Maxfort School, Pitampura, was also denied. Her parents then approached the Delhi High Court, seeking enforcement of her right to education. The school, represented by advocate Kamal Gupta, opposed the petition, arguing there were no vacancies in the general or CWSN categories and that right to education must be weighed against seat limitations and institutional readiness. He further argued that right to education in a neighbourhood or special school was contingent upon availability and suitability, and cannot override seat limitations or institutional readiness. Rejecting the school's defence, the court held in its 28-page verdict that its conduct reflected a regressive approach. 'Her behaviour, flagged by the school, should have triggered support. Instead, the school's response was one of distancing,' the order noted. 'The actions of the school reveal an institutional approach that failed to evolve in consonance with the needs of the petitioner as a person with disabilities.' Welcoming the decision, the girl's lawyer, Ashok Agarwal, called it a landmark judgment. 'This verdict fulfils the constitutional promise of inclusive education. Disabled children have been sidelined for far too long—this ruling is a vital corrective,' he said.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
US Independence Day 2025: What to know about July 4 history, significance, and traditions
Independence Day, celebrated every year on July 4, marks the birth of the United States as an independent nation. It commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, when the Continental Congress formally declared that the 13 American colonies were no longer subject to British rule. Before 1776, the land that became the United States was made up of thirteen British colonies along the eastern coast of North America. Although the colonies had local governments with elected assemblies, they remained under the authority of the British monarchy and Parliament. Growing dissatisfaction over policies such as taxation without representation, limits on self-government, and the presence of British troops fueled resentment among colonists. These grievances ultimately sparked the American Revolution. On July 4, 1776, delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia approved the Declaration of Independence, drafted primarily by former US President Thomas Jefferson, proclaiming that the colonies were 'free and independent States.' Though the Declaration was adopted in 1776, the war with Britain continued for several years. It was not until September 3, 1783, with the Treaty of Paris, that Britain formally recognised American independence. In 1788–89, George Washington was elected the first president, further solidifying the newly formed United States. US Independence Day became a cherished annual celebration of nationhood. In 1870, the US Congress declared July 4 an unpaid holiday for federal workers. Later, in 1938, it became a paid federal holiday. As a result, many businesses and government offices across the country are closed every year on this date. US Independence Day is widely associated with fireworks, parades, concerts, barbecues, carnivals, fairs, baseball games, and family reunions. These events not only celebrate the country's history but also bring communities together in a spirit of patriotism. Many cities hold large public fireworks displays, while households often mark the occasion with gatherings and cookouts. Political leaders deliver speeches, and public ceremonies are held to honor the nation's founding ideals of liberty and democracy. The Fourth of July is much more than a day off work or an opportunity for festivities. It represents the core principles of American identity: independence, self-determination, and the right to govern oneself free from foreign rule.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
NDA will form govt. in Bihar with two-thirds majority, says Rajnath
PATNA Ahead of the Assembly election later this year in Bihar, senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh targeted the opposition Congress and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) on Wednesday, alleging that these parties only have the sole aim of remaining in power by any means. He was in Patna to attend the Bihar BJP Working Committee meeting, in which several resolutions were passed in the presence of senior party leaders. Addressing the meeting, the Defence Minister sought to draw the blueprint for the BJP, 'the world's largest party', to take on the Opposition. 'When the Opposition talks about the politics of hatred, we have to answer it with the politics of service. When they talk about pushing Bihar back, we will talk about the road map of a bright future. When they distract the people of Bihar from issues, we should talk about educated Bihar,' he said. Mr. Singh also referred to RJD's rule in the past as 'Jungle Raj' and said Bihar has suffered injustice for decades. 'In the last two decades, under the leadership of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, Bihar has made unprecedented progress and the old image of Jungle Raj has been broken,' he said. Expressing confidence that the Janata Dal (United) and BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in Bihar will again form the government with a two-thirds majority in the State election due in October-November, he exhorted party cadres to reach every house and share information about the schemes and achievements of the Narendra Modi-led government at the Centre. 'We have to convince the people that if anyone can bring back the lost glory of Bihar, it is BJP and NDA,' Mr. Singh said. BJP State president Dilip Jaiswal, who was chairing the meeting, said everyone got new direction and energy from the speech of Mr. Singh. 'Now we will go among the people and tell them about the development that has happened during the NDA government,' he said. Resolutions passed The BJP's Bihar unit passed a resolution criticising the 'appeasement politics' of the Mahagathbandhan helmed by Lalu Prasad's RJD, which has been opposing the Waqf (Amendment) Act that came into force in April. The party passed a two-page political resolution, besides a 'Vijay Sankalp Prastav' that declared 'Lalu [Prasad] and his allies cannot defeat us' in the Assembly poll. The resolution also touched upon the Emergency imposed 50 years ago, and alleged that the 'lives of many generations were wasted behind [Indira Gandhi's] slogan 'Garibi Hatao'. It was under Modi that 27 crore people have been able to overcome poverty'. The resolution also lauded the Defence Minister for 'giving a strong message to China, while on its soil, against double standards towards terror, by refusing to sign the joint statement at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Defence Ministers' meeting'.
