EDITORIALS FROM 13th Sep 2025
EDITORIAL 01
The RTI’s shift to a ‘right to deny information’
Issue: The Right to Information (RTI) Act is rooted in the democratic principle that in a democracy, all information held by the government belongs to the citizens.
The Act ensures transparency by granting the public access to government-held information, which is an essential mechanism for accountability.
However, recent amendments under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act threaten to undermine the transparency guaranteed by the RTI Act, particularly in its interpretation of personal information.
Key Provisions of RTI Act:
- Section 8(1)(j): The original provision aimed to balance public interest with privacy concerns by restricting the disclosure of personal information that did not relate to public activity or if it resulted in an “unwarranted invasion of privacy.”
- Proviso Clause: It stipulated that information could not be denied to citizens if it was accessible to Parliament or State Legislatures, thereby reinforcing transparency and access to public information.
Amendments by the DPDP Act:
- The DPDP Act introduced a drastic change to Section 8(1)(j) by reducing its provisions to only six words.
- This simplification has made it easier to deny information, particularly personal data, by creating ambiguity regarding what qualifies as personal information.
- This broad interpretation could lead to withholding a substantial amount of government-held data, turning the RTI into a Right to Deny Information (RDI).
Conflicting Interpretations of “Personal Information”:
There are two main interpretations of “personal information”:
- Natural Person Interpretation: This view defines “person” as an individual, focusing on personal privacy.
- DPDP Bill Interpretation: This definition extends “person” to include entities like corporations, firms, and even the state, which would allow the government to classify nearly all information as personal, severely restricting access.
What are its Implications for Transparency and Accountability?
- Facilitation of Corruption:
- Denying access to vital information hampers public monitoring, which is essential for combating corruption.
- Without transparency, corruption will continue unchecked, as seen in government departments where essential records are withheld under the guise of personal data protection.
- Loss of Public Monitoring Mechanism:
- With the broader classification of information as personal, citizens will lose the ability to monitor government actions effectively.
- For example, basic public records like marksheets or official orders could be denied on privacy grounds.
- Erosion of Public Trust:
- The fear of data protection violations may incentivize Public Information Officers (PIOs) to deny access to information, further reducing public trust in the RTI mechanism.
What are the Challenges with the “Larger Public Interest” Clause?
- Although Section 8(2) allows for information disclosure if it serves the larger public interest, its application is infrequent.
- Weighing the balance between individual privacy and public benefit is a complex decision, often leading to denials rather than disclosures, especially under the amended provisions.
Apathy Towards RTI Amendments:
- There has been a lack of public outcry regarding the amendments, possibly because the changes have been framed within the context of data protection, making them appear less threatening.
- This apathy has allowed the RTI Act’s spirit of transparency to be compromised without much resistance.
What needs to be done?
- Media and Citizen Engagement: Public discourse on the RTI amendments needs to be revived. Awareness campaigns should be conducted to inform citizens about the potential consequences.
- Political Accountability: Citizens should demand that political parties address these issues in their election manifestos and commit to reversing the amendments.
- Building Public Opinion: A united effort is necessary to build strong public opinion, which will exert pressure on the government to reconsider these changes.
- Recognizing the Gravity of the Issue: This issue is as critical as any national policy debate, as it directly impacts the fundamental right to information and the health of Indian democracy.
The RTI Act is a crucial instrument for ensuring government accountability and transparency.
However, the recent amendments under the DPDP Act threaten to turn the RTI into a tool for information denial rather than transparency.
If citizens remain indifferent, they risk compromising their right to information, with dire consequences for democratic functioning.
Therefore, collective action is needed to protect the integrity of the RTI Act and ensure that it continues to serve as a cornerstone of democratic accountability in India.
EDITORIAL 02
Property rights, tribals and the gender parity gap
Issue: The issue of tribal women’s property rights gained renewed significance following the Supreme Court judgment on July 17, 2025 in the case of Ram Charan & Ors. vs Sukhram & Ors., where the court equated the exclusion of daughters from ancestral property to a violation of their fundamental right to equality.
This ruling brings to light the pressing issue of gender injustice faced by most tribal women, particularly in states with a significant tribal population, where statutory rights in ancestral property are often denied.
What is the Case?
- Background:
- The case involved a tribal woman from Sarguja district, Chhattisgarh, who sought a share in her ancestral property.
- The trial court rejected the plea, citing a customary practice in the Gond tribe that excluded women from inheritance rights.
- However, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled in favor of the female heirs, stating that denying women’s rights in ancestral property perpetuated gender discrimination.
- Judicial Standpoint:
- The court’s judgment in this case is significant as it challenges the long-held tribal customs that deny women inheritance rights.
- The ruling aligns with the gender equality provisions of the Constitution, making it clear that such practices, under the guise of tradition, cannot be allowed to negate fundamental rights.
What are the Challenges Faced by Tribal Women?
- Absence of Statutory Rights:
- Despite their significant contribution to farming and rural economies, tribal women in Scheduled Areas (including Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha) have no statutory rights to inherit land.
- The Agriculture Census 2015-16 reveals that only 16.7% of Scheduled Tribe (ST) women own land, compared to 83.3% of ST men.
- Cultural and Societal Barriers:
- Land is considered communitarian property in many tribal societies, making individual ownership, especially by women, rare.
- Additionally, fears of land alienation due to marriage outside the tribe further justify the denial of property rights to women.
- Customary Laws vs. Legal Rights:
- Tribal societies follow customary laws in matters of marriage, succession, and adoption, and these customs often exclude women from inheriting ancestral property.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Madhu Kishwar & Ors. vs State of Bihar (1996) reinforced this, refusing to invalidate these practices despite their gender-biased nature.
What is the Need for Legal Reform?
- Customs and Law:
- Any custom must satisfy certain criteria—antiquity, continuity, reasonableness, and conformity to public policy—to be legally recognized.
- Courts have often struck down discriminatory customs, as seen in Prabha Minz Daughter of Late Saran Linda vs Martha Ekka (2022), where the Jharkhand High Court upheld women’s inheritance rights in the Oraon tribe.
- Separate Tribal Succession Act:
- Given that tribal women are excluded from the purview of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, the establishment of a separate Tribal Succession Act could address the unique needs of tribal communities.
- Codifying tribal inheritance laws on similar lines to those for Hindus and Christians would be a significant step toward gender equality and justice.
The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on July 17, 2025, is a welcome step towards achieving gender parity in the property rights of tribal women.
However, for lasting change, a separate legal framework that recognizes the unique socio-cultural context of tribal communities is required.
The Tribal Succession Act could serve as a solution to ensure that tribal women are granted the same inheritance rights as their male counterparts, thus fostering gender justice in the true spirit of equality.
EDITORIAL 03
Donald Trump’s crackdown on science gives India a great opportunity
PROVIDED TO PAID MEMBERS, IF YOU WANT CLICK HERE TO JOIN