Pause, evaluate, repeal ‘RTI-destroying modification’: Ramesh to Vaishnaw

Pause, evaluate, repeal ‘RTI-destroying modification’: Ramesh to Vaishnaw

The operation of the RTI Act, 2005 — knowledgeable by a number of judgments by the Supreme Court docket and varied Excessive Courts — has demonstrated that the legislation is ready to withhold the disclosure of private data that has no relationship to any public exercise or public curiosity, Ramesh mentioned in his communication to Vaishnaw.

The deletion of the proviso in Part 8(1) of the RTI Act which recognises the residents’ proper to data as being at par with that of legislators is “utterly unwarranted”, he contended.

“In actual fact, that proviso is relevant not simply to the private data exemption, however all exemptions in part 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Fourth, you point out the Puttaswamy judgement of the Supreme Court docket. Please do do not forget that nowhere on this judgment is it talked about that the RTI Act, 2005 itself must be amended.

“The judgement reinforces that safeguarding private privateness and selling institutional transparency aren’t mutually unique however are collectively important,” Ramesh argued.

“I might subsequently strongly once more urge you to pause, evaluate, and repeal the modification made to the RTI Act, 2005. As you’d have seen, this difficulty has additionally exercised a broad spectrum of individuals from civil society, teachers, and political events,” Ramesh mentioned in his letter.

In his letter dated 23 March, Ramesh had mentioned Part 44 (3) of the DPDP Act prohibits sharing private data beneath the Proper to Info Act 2005. He had mentioned Part 44 (3) of the Information Safety Act, 2023 seeks to substitute clause j (data which pertains to private data) in sub-section (1) of part 8 of the Proper to Info Act, 2005.

He had additional mentioned that the whole lot within the sub-section will get deleted as a result of change, together with the proviso that acknowledged that “offered that the data which can’t be denied to the Parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any individual”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *