A group of 95 retired civil servants and diplomats on Wednesday urged the Union government to roll back a provision of the proposed Digital Personal Data Protection Act that amends the Right to Information Act to disallow the disclosure of personal information about public officials.

In a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Minister for Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw, the Constitutional Conduct Group said that the amendment would render the Right to Information Act “largely ineffective”.

The Centre is seeking to amend Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act through Section 44(3) of the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, which imposes a blanket ban on the disclosure of personal information. It has not defined what constitutes “personal information”.

Section 8(1)(j) states: “Information which relates to personal information and the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”.

Critics have called the proposed change a serious threat to the principles of transparency and accountability that the Right to Information Act was designed to uphold.

On Wednesday, the Constitutional Conduct Group noted that the right to information is derived from Article 19(1) of the Constitution that guarantees the freedom of speech and expression.

The proposed amendments to Section 8(1)(j) “will have the effect of crippling a crucial provision of the RTI Act by unconscionably enlarging the scope of the exceptions granted under Section 8 of the said Act”, the group said in its letter.

It added that the amendment to be effected by Section 44(3) of the digital protection law “virtually imposes a blanket ban on the disclosure of personal information, doing away with the important exceptions carved out within the RTI Act wherein personal information could be denied only if it was unrelated to any public activity or public interest, or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy”.

The amendment has also dispensed with the proviso Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, which provides that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person, the group added.

The Constitutional Conduct Group noted that there was a need for the protection of digital data. “However, we do not see any contradiction between the RTI Act and the concern to protect individual data,” it added.

The bureaucrats stated that the Right to Information Act already protected personal data in its current form. “There are ten categories of information that can be denied to a citizen,” the group said. “Further restrictions are totally unwarranted.”

The letter said that the access to granular information, including personal information, was “critical to empowering the people to undertake collective monitoring of government schemes and programmes and ensuring access to their entitlements”.

It added: “As the primary stakeholder in governance, the citizen is entitled to pierce the veil of anonymity that shields indolent and/or corrupt public servants and their partners in crime.”

The larger public interest of ensuring accountability must override any qualms regarding the disclosure of their personal information, the letter said.

“We, therefore, strongly urge you to roll back Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act [2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act] and in the interim withhold the Gazette notification relating to the coming into force of this provision,” the group added.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act received presidential assent in August 2023. The rules for its enforcement are being developed.

Critics have flagged concerns that the proposed data protection law does not strengthen individual privacy nor does it affix adequate accountability upon non-state entities that misuse individuals’ data.