NEW DELHI: A group of leaders from the I.N.D.I.A. bloc has called for the immediate repeal of Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), arguing that the provision undermines the landmark Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. At a press conference in the national capital on Thursday, Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi announced that over 120 MPs — including Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi — have signed a joint memorandum, which will be submitted to information technology minister Ashwini Vaishnaw.Critics of the amendment, including civil society groups and Opposition leaders, contend that Section 44(3) effectively nullifies the safeguard under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which permits government bodies to withhold personal data only when disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, while also allowing for exceptions when public interest is at stake. In contrast, the amended DPDP provision mandates outright non-disclosure of any information related to personal data, regardless of potential public interest.“The recent amendments to the Act, made during a period when the country was preoccupied with a no-confidence motion linked to the Manipur crisis, have fundamentally altered the intent of the earlier Joint Parliamentary Committee report,” Gogoi stated. “It appears that the government’s last-minute changes were designed to curtail the citizens’ right to access information. This is an attack on transparency and accountability.”Leaders from DMK, Shiv Sena (UBT), CPI-M, SP, and RJD echoed similar concerns. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Priyanka Chaturvedi denounced the move as “an attack on the freedom of the press,” arguing that it would keep the public in the dark about critical issues such as corruption. SP’s Javed Ali and CPM’s John Brittas also expressed alarm over the potential impact of the amendment on democratic rights.Gogoi, who served on the Joint Parliamentary Committee examining the DPDP Bill, criticised the process by which the amendment was introduced. “Nothing related to Section 8(1)(j) was discussed in the JPC. We had submitted dissenting notes, yet these provisions were added without proper deliberation,” he said.
Source link
