--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDIA RTI for empowerment" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rti4empowerme...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729rFJGc-4xYMupfZoYe7EbEETV4yxtJ0_e1kXFuOj5Ho9A%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear all,I agree with Zagade saheb completely. Prahladji, please read the Bill as tabled in Parliament and compare it with the draft Bill of 2022. The comparative reading will make it clear as to what has changed in Section 8(1)(j). The Draft Bill of 2022 sought to omit the second limb of the exemption which contains two tests for the disclosure of personal information or otherwise. The third limb contains the public interest override. The draft Bill sought to omit these two limbs. The Bill tabled in the Parliament reversed this by saying, what it will retain in Section 8(1)(j). The extract from the RTI Act was attached to that Bill. It contained the entire Section 8(1)(j) and the proviso. Out of this the Act only retains the first limb of the original Section 8(1)(j). Therefore, Section 8(1)(j) becomes a category or blanket exemption like Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(f) which do not contain harm tests. So the public authority is most likely to use rejection as the default option and we will have to argue overriding public interest by using Section 8(2) in every such case. The PIO only has the burden of showing that the information sought is personal information. He does not have to show what harm will be caused by disclosing such information as was the case earlier (at least in theory). In any case, until the Government brings the DPDP Act into force, the original formulation of Section 8(1)(j) will continue to hold the field. Every action of a public authority to invoke Section 8(1)(j) in its amended form must be contested until the DPDP Act is brought into force (i.e., when GoI makes the Rules and issues a notification saying on which date this part of the DPDP Act will come into force).regardsVenkatOn Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 08:23, Mahesh Zagade <zma...@hotmail.com> wrote:The change in (j) represents a significant and far-reaching alteration, as it effectively imposes a complete prohibition on the sharing of personal information under the Right to Information Act.This change has profound implications for transparency and accountability, as it restricts the public's access to crucial information that is vital for holding individuals and institutions accountable. By barring the sharing of personal information, this amendment undermines the very essence of the Right to Information Act, which was designed to empower citizens with the ability to access and scrutinize government records and information.
Regards,
Mahesh Zagade, IASx,
Ex-Principal Secretary to Government ofMaharashtra(India)
On 21-Aug-2023, at 7:44 AM, Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkac...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (1).pdf>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CABun1LzkYzbWWY%3Dd2U-474f_LH%2B8bkVmLr_gmoMP%3DJovBRyRaA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDIA RTI for empowerment" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rti4empowerme...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729oey2-H3khYC886e_kiCMPMyMEv7GA8%2B8PGcQWUF0votg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Can Section 8(2) of the RTI Act overcome the Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act?
Read more at: - Can Section 8(2) of the RTI Act overcome the Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act? | RTI Foundation of India
- Can Section 8(2) of the RTI Act overcome the Section 44(3) of the DPDP...
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act restricts the disclosure of information in larger public interest u/s 8(1)(j)
Dr. R. K. VermaOn Monday, 21 August, 2023 at 11:06:03 am IST, shailesh gandhi <shail...@gmail.com> wrote:In my opinion the original Section 8 (1)(j) exempts:(i) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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:
Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person
44(3) of DPDP states:
(3) In section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in sub-section (1), for clause (j),
the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
“(j) information which relates to personal information;”.
Thus all information which can be called personal can be refused.Mr. Zagade says this has profound implications. I agree and state that effectively RTI becomes RTD: Right to DENY Information.I believe we should try and create public opinion to get back the original provision. Attaching my article on this:Love
shaileshIf you want more information on RTI visit www.satyamevajayate.info
All my emails are in public domain.Mera Bharat Mahaan Nahi Hai,Per yeh Dosh, Mera HaiTel: 91 8976240798
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 8:23 AM Mahesh Zagade <zma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The change in (j) represents a significant and far-reaching alteration, as it effectively imposes a complete prohibition on the sharing of personal information under the Right to Information Act.
This change has profound implications for transparency and accountability, as it restricts the public's access to crucial information that is vital for holding individuals and institutions accountable. By barring the sharing of personal information, this amendment undermines the very essence of the Right to Information Act, which was designed to empower citizens with the ability to access and scrutinize government records and information.
Regards,
Mahesh Zagade, IASx,
Ex-Principal Secretary to Government ofMaharashtra(India)
On 21-Aug-2023, at 7:44 AM, Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkac...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (1).pdf>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Information is a source of learning. But unless it is organized, processed, and available to the right people in a format for decision making, it is a burden, not a benefit.”
William Pollard quotes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "RTI Trainers Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to rtitr...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rtitrainers...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/rtitrainers?hl=en-GB
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RTI Trainers Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtitrainers...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rtitrainers/CALPaAjp9o23rT%3D9t5y_vjGKpG31sUzxhP174Ae2KC0HzTURgUw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDIA RTI for empowerment" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rti4empowerme...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729rRiDdiqaOr4EdraXtR3F3cw20U3yp4HSaOtAdqwAB4mQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear all,An interesting judgment of the Karnataka High Court where it has been held that for working out redressal for the grievances, an employee has to have full service particulars of other employees. The bench directed that the Service particulars of colleagues to be furnished for dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion. Girish Deshpande judgment of the Apex Court distinguished.Dr. R. K. Verma
On Thursday, 24 August, 2023 at 11:27:08 pm IST, 'rajesh verma' via RTI Trainers Forum <rtitr...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Can Section 8(2) of the RTI Act overcome the Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act?
Read more at: - Can Section 8(2) of the RTI Act overcome the Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act? | RTI Foundation of India
- Can Section 8(2) of the RTI Act overcome the Section 44(3) of the DPDP...
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act restricts the disclosure of information in larger public interest u/s 8(1)(j)
Dr. R. K. Verma
In my opinion the original Section 8 (1)(j) exempts:(i) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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:
Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person
44(3) of DPDP states:
(3) In section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in sub-section (1), for clause (j),
the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
“(j) information which relates to personal information;”.
Thus all information which can be called personal can be refused.Mr. Zagade says this has profound implications. I agree and state that effectively RTI becomes RTD: Right to DENY Information.I believe we should try and create public opinion to get back the original provision. Attaching my article on this:
Love
shaileshIf you want more information on RTI visit www.satyamevajayate.info
All my emails are in public domain.Mera Bharat Mahaan Nahi Hai,Per yeh Dosh, Mera HaiTel: 91 8976240798
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 8:23 AM Mahesh Zagade <zma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The change in (j) represents a significant and far-reaching alteration, as it effectively imposes a complete prohibition on the sharing of personal information under the Right to Information Act.
This change has profound implications for transparency and accountability, as it restricts the public's access to crucial information that is vital for holding individuals and institutions accountable. By barring the sharing of personal information, this amendment undermines the very essence of the Right to Information Act, which was designed to empower citizens with the ability to access and scrutinize government records and information.
Regards,
Mahesh Zagade, IASx,
Ex-Principal Secretary to Government ofMaharashtra(India)
On 21-Aug-2023, at 7:44 AM, Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkac...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rtitrainers/837219203.2332396.1692895154682%40mail.yahoo.com.