Pause, review, repeal 'RTI-destroying amendment': Jairam Ramesh to Ashwini Vaishnaw
New Delhi, Apr 13 (PTI): Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Sunday said that deletion of the proviso in the RTI Act that recognises citizens' right to information as being at par with that of legislators is "completely unwarranted", and urged IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw to pause, review, and repeal the amendment made to the original legislation of 2005.
Ramesh's assertion came days after Vaishnaw responded to the Congress leader's earlier letter in which he had expressed concern over Section 44 (3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 which "prohibits" sharing personal information under the Right to Information Act 2005.
Vaishnaw had responded to Ramesh, saying that personal details that are subject to public disclosure under various laws will continue to be disclosed under the RTI Act after the implementation of the new data protection rule.
"Many thanks for your response dated April 10, 2025, to my letter of March 23, 2025, regarding the far-reaching amendment made to the RTI Act, 2005 through Section 44 (3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.
"I now wish to make four points by way of a counter-response to your defence of the RTI-destroying amendment," Ramesh said in his letter to Vaishnaw on Sunday.
"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 RTI Act, which exempts all personal information from being accessible," the Congress general secretary 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 said in his communication to Vaishnaw.
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.
"In fact, that proviso is applicable not just to the personal information exemption, but all exemptions in section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Fourth, you mention the Puttaswamy judgement of the Supreme Court. Please do remember that nowhere in this judgment is it mentioned that the RTI 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 argued.
"I would therefore strongly again 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 in his letter to Vaishnaw.
Ramesh in his letter dated March 23 had said that Section 44 (3) of the DPDP Act prohibits sharing personal information under the Right to Information Act 2005.
He had said Section 44 (3) of the Data Protection Act, 2023 seeks to substitute clause j (information which relates to personal information) in sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
He had further said that everything in the sub-section gets deleted due to the change, including the proviso that stated that "provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person".
"The Proviso in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 that gives citizens equal right to information as legislators who represent them is totally eliminated," Ramesh had said.
The existing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 had enough guardrails to protect unwarranted invasion of privacy, he had argued.
In his response, the minister cited Section 3 of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 to explain the government's stance.
According to Section 3 of the DPDP Act, the provisions of the Act will not apply on personal data processed by an individual for any personal or domestic purpose and personal data that is made publicly available by the individual himself or any other person who is under an obligation under any law for the time being in force in India to make such personal data publicly available.
Section 44 (3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 seeks to substitute clause 8 (1) (j) in the RTI Act 2005 to deny sharing personal information under the RTI Act 2005.
Opposition INDIA bloc on Thursday had demanded the repeal of certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, contending that these sought to curtail access to public information under the pretext of safeguarding privacy.
Some INDIA bloc leaders, including Gaurav Gogoi (Congress) and M M Abdulla (DMK), had addressed a joint press conference seeking the repeal of Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act that was passed by Parliament in 2023.
They had also said they have signed a joint memorandum for the repeal of this section and it will be submitted to Information and Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw.
.@Jairam_Ramesh asks Modi Govt to "pause, review and repeal" the changes made to the RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protect Act, 2023, as he rejects Union Minister Ashwani Vaishnaw's defence of the "RTI-destroying amendment" @DeccanHerald pic.twitter.com/PXtPve45bP
— Shemin (@shemin_joy) April 13, 2025
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Haryana land deal: Robert Vadra appears before ED on 3rd day
_vb_32.jpeg)
New Delhi (PTI): Robert Vadra, the businessman brother-in-law of Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, appeared before the ED on the third straight day on Thursday for questioning in a money laundering case linked to alleged irregularities in a 2008 Haryana land deal case.
The 56-year-old has been questioned for over ten hours in the last two days as part of the investigation and the recording of his statement process under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) will continue Thursday, officials said.
He reached the ED office in central Delhi shortly after 11 am accompanied by his wife Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who is MP from Wayanad.
Vadra had called the ED action borne out of "political vendetta" against him and his family, and said that while he has always cooperated with the agency and furnished thousands of pages of documents, he needed a "closure" in these cases which are almost 20 years old.
The probe against Vadra is linked to a land deal in Haryana's Manesar-Shikohpur (now sector 83) in Gurugram.
The deal of February 2008 was done by a company named Skylight Hospitality Pvt Ltd, where Vadra was a director earlier, as it purchased a 3.5 acre of land in Shikohpur from Onkareshwar Properties at a price of Rs 7.5 crore.
A Congress government led by Bhupinder Singh Hooda was in power at that time. Four years later, in September 2012, the company sold the land to realty major DLF for Rs 58 crore.
The land deal got embroiled in controversy in October 2012 after IAS officer Ashok Khemka, then posted as the director general of Land Consolidation and Land Records-cum-Inspector-General of Registration of Haryana, cancelled the mutation of this categorising the transaction as violative of state consolidation Act and some related procedures.
The BJP, which was in opposition then, had termed the case an instance of "corruption" in land deals and that of "nepotism", hinting at Vadra's kinship with the first family of the Congress party.
Haryana Police had filed an FIR to probe this deal in 2018.
Vadra has been questioned multiple times by the federal probe agency in two different money laundering cases earlier.
Sources told PTI that the ED will soon file chargesheets in all these three cases being investigated against Vadra.
