Civil Society seeks Rollback of DPDP changes to RTI Act
Extract
from the article:
The article outlines current civil society concerns regarding recent amendments
introduced under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) framework and
their consequential impact on the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Civil society
organizations are vociferously advocating for a rollback of these changes,
which they fear could dilute the effectiveness of the RTI Act—a cornerstone
legislation that safeguards transparency and accountability in governance. The
alterations threaten to introduce opaque data privacy standards that
inadvertently obstruct public access to crucial information, undermining
democratic oversight.
Moreover, the piece highlights how these amendments might
curtail citizens’ rights by imposing onerous conditions or ambiguous clauses
that hinder information disclosures under RTI requests. Activists and legal
experts argue that while data protection is essential, it should not come at
the cost of transparency. They call upon lawmakers and regulatory bodies to
revisit these provisions to ensure a delicate balance between protecting
personal data and preserving public access to government-held information—integral
to upholding the very fabric of participatory democracy.
My
Take:
A. What Got
Achieved?
Reflecting on my earlier analysis about governmental accountability and
transparency, I had stressed that political manifestos must not only promise
but also clearly communicate tangible achievements with precise metrics and
investment rationales. The current calls to safeguard the RTI Act resonate
strongly with my previous contention that opaque processes and lack of clear
reports hamper trust and democratic engagement. In that 2019 blog, I pondered
how without transparent disclosures, citizens are left in the dark about
progress—rendering oversight mechanisms feeble.
This issue runs parallel with the challenges posed by the
DPDP Act changes. If data protection reforms obscure official disclosures or
complicate information retrieval, then the very purpose of democratic
accountability is imperiled. Hence, reinforcing transparency, as I advocated
years ago, is not merely a bureaucratic exercise but a democratically vital
imperative—as relevant today as ever.
B. Structural
Reforms
Years back, I envisioned the transformative potential of embedding responsible
reforms that marry citizen participation with technology-enabled transparency.
My proposal included online opinion polls and publishing quarterly performance
reviews of government targets versus actual achievements to foster
accountability directly through public engagement. The current uproar over
DPDP’s amendments reaffirms the criticality of such frameworks—a reminder that
reforms must be participatory and robust rather than restrictive or convoluted.
The backlash from civil society spotlights a vital lesson I
advocated: technological or legislative reforms should not become smokescreens
that constrict citizen empowerment but rather be catalytic for openness and
inclusion. Balancing data privacy with unimpeded access to information demands
an iterative dialogue between policymakers and the populace, a process I
emphasized as essential structural reform.
C. Digital
Provident Fund: Unparalleled Opportunity
In an earlier proposal for a Digital Provident Fund that would democratize
financial benefits and channel funds into productive infrastructure projects,
the underlying principle was to harness digital innovation for citizen benefit
and transparency. The current situation—where digital data privacy laws risk
curtailing transparency—illuminates the double-edged nature of digital
legislation. My concept envisioned empowerment through digital tools, enabling
citizens to track, benefit, and engage with governance outcomes clearly.
The lesson here is that digital policy frameworks need to
rigorously prioritize openness alongside protection—ensuring that data
safeguards do not become barriers to accountability. Revisiting my earlier
vision for digitally enabled governance reminds us that technological progress,
policy reforms, and citizen rights must harmonize seamlessly.
Call to
Action:
To the policymakers spearheading the DPDP amendments and the custodians of the
RTI framework: I urge you to pause and re-examine these changes through the
prism of democratic transparency. Engage meaningfully with civil society and
data rights experts to recalibrate the laws so that they protect individuals’
data without erecting labyrinthine barriers to information access. Uphold the
inviolable balance between privacy and openness—ensuring that the Right to
Information remains an unassailable pillar of our democracy.
A legislative rollback or meaningful revision to align DPDP
with RTI objectives is not just advisable; it is imperative. The health of our
democracy depends upon it.
With regards,
Hemen Parekh
No comments:
Post a Comment