The Congress leader went on to add: “I now wish to make four points by way of a counter-response to your defence of the RTI-destroying amendment. First, Section 3 of the DPDP Act, 2023, cited in your letter as protecting disclosures under the RTI Act 2005, is wholly irrelevant since Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 itself has been amended drastically.”“Section 3 of the DPDP Act will now only protect disclosures as per the amended I Act, which exempts all personal information from being accessible,” he said.The operation of the RTI Act, 2005 – informed by several judgments by the Supreme Court and various High Courts – has demonstrated that the law is able to withhold the disclosure of personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, Ramesh noted.The deletion of the proviso in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which recognises the citizens’ right to information as being at par with that of legislators is “completely unwarranted”, he contended, adding: “In fact, that proviso is applicable not just to the personal information exemption, but all exemptions in section 8(1) of theI Act, 2005. Fourth, you mention the Puttaswamy judgment of the Supreme Court. Please do remember that nowhere in this judgment is it mentioned that the I Act, 2005 itself needs to be amended”.“The judgement reinforces that safeguarding personal privacy and promoting institutional transparency are not mutually exclusive but are jointly essential,” Ramesh further argued.“I would therefore strongly urge you to pause, review, and repeal the amendment made to the RTI Act, 2005. As you would have seen, this issue has also exercised a broad spectrum of people from civil society, academics, and political parties,” Ramesh said.
Source link
