Content

1. The RTI’s shift to a ‘right to deny information’
2. Property rights, tribals and the gender parity gap
3. Scam space

The RTI’s shift to a ‘right to deny information’

Why is it in News?

• The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 has amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, drastically narrowing its scope.
• The amendment makes denial of information easier under the broad category of “personal information,” raising concerns of diluting transparency and enabling corruption.

Relevance:

• GS2: Governance, transparency & accountability, role of statutory bodies, issues with citizen-centric laws.
• GS2 (Polity): Fundamental Rights conflict (Article 19(1)(a) vs Article 21 privacy).
• GS4: Ethics – transparency vs confidentiality.

Practice Question :
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 through the DPDP Act, 2023 marks a shift from a regime of transparency to one of opacity. Discuss in light of the constitutional balance between the right to know and the right to privacy.(250 Words)

From Basics

• RTI Act, 2005: Empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities; cornerstone of transparency and accountability in democracy.
• Section 8(1)(j) (Original): Allowed denial of information if it had no connection with public activity or was an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest justified disclosure.
• Proviso (Original): If information could not be denied to Parliament or State Legislature, it could not be denied to citizens.
• DPDP Act Amendment: Reduced Section 8(1)(j) to just “personal information” (undefined and overbroad), making rejection of RTI queries much easier.

Overview

Conceptual Issues

• Ambiguity in “personal information”: No settled definition — could mean natural persons or entities (companies, associations, state).
• Expansive DPDP definition → almost all data becomes “personal,” allowing blanket denials.
• Contradiction between RTI’s mandate for transparency and DPDP’s overriding clause prioritising privacy/data protection.

Legal-constitutional Dimensions

• RTI as a fundamental right: Rooted in Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech & expression).
• Privacy as fundamental right: Recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) under Article 21.
• Conflict: RTI (right to know) vs privacy (right to be left alone). Requires balance, not blanket denial.
• Article 19(2) restrictions: Only “decency” and “morality” relate to privacy; denial beyond these may be unconstitutional.

Impact on Governance

• Transparency weakened: Routine disclosures (pension beneficiaries, ghost employees, exam results) may now be denied.
• PIOs disincentivised: Fear of ₹250 crore penalty under DPDP → tendency to reject RTIs to be “safe.”
• Citizens’ oversight reduced: Loss of public monitoring mechanism; anti-corruption bodies (Lokpal, vigilance depts.) already ineffective.

Risk of Corruption

• Ghost employees, fake welfare cards, irregular appointments can remain hidden as “personal information.”
• Even corruption-related orders/files signed by officials may be denied.
• Effectively turns RTI into Right to Denial (RDI).

Democratic Backsliding

• Citizens legitimise governance → but are now denied the information needed to hold it accountable.
• Amendment undermines rule of the people, by the people, for the people.
• Public/media apathy dangerous; issue not debated at national level unlike earlier RTI dilution attempts (e.g., CIC tenure/salaries).

Way Forward

• Legal clarity: Harmonise DPDP and RTI through judicial interpretation; privacy exemptions must remain narrow.
• Parliamentary oversight: Reintroduce the proviso that information available to Parliament cannot be denied to citizens.
• Public movement: Citizens, media, civil society must demand reversal of dilution; include in election manifestos.
• Institutional safeguards: CIC must be empowered to weigh public interest consistently.

Final Takeaway

The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act through the DPDP Act is being seen as a serious regression for transparency and accountability in India, weakening citizens’ ability to monitor governance and empowering corruption. The debate represents a crucial fundamental rights conflict between RTI (Article 19) and Privacy (Article 21), with democracy’s future transparency at stake.

Property rights, tribals and the gender parity gap

Why in News

• On July 17, 2025, the Supreme Court in Ram Charan & Ors. vs Sukhram & Ors. held that excluding daughters of Scheduled Tribes from ancestral property inheritance amounts to violation of their Fundamental Right to Equality (Article 14).
• The judgment reopens debate on tribal women’s property rights, long denied under customary laws despite constitutional guarantees.

Relevance:

• GS1: Indian society, role of women, tribal customs, social empowerment.
• GS2: Constitution (Articles 14, 15, 21), judiciary’s role in reforming discriminatory customs, Directive Principles.

Practice Question:
Customary laws cannot be an alibi for perpetuating gender inequality. In light of the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Ram Charan vs Sukhram, critically examine the challenges and prospects of ensuring property rights for tribal women in India.(250 Words)

From Basics

• Scheduled Tribes & Customary Laws:
  • STs in Fifth Schedule states (Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, etc.) are governed by customary practices in succession, marriage, and adoption.
  • Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (amended in 2005) does not apply to STs (Section 2(2)).
• Customary Position:
  • In most tribal communities (except matrilineal ones in Northeast), women lack inheritance rights.
  • Land seen as communitarian property; fear of alienation if women marry non-tribals.
• Judicial Stand:
  • Courts traditionally upheld customs if proven (e.g., Madhu Kishwar vs State of Bihar, 1996).
  • However, courts increasingly scrutinize customs against equality, gender justice, and public policy.

Overview

Key Judgments Shaping the Debate

• Madhu Kishwar vs State of Bihar (1996): SC upheld tribal customs denying women land inheritance → “parity would cause chaos.”
• Prabha Minz vs Martha Ekka (2022): Jharkhand HC granted Oraon women inheritance rights as defendants failed to prove exclusion custom.
• Kamala Neti vs Special Land Acquisition Officer (2022): SC took affirmative stand, signalling gender parity.
• Ram Charan vs Sukhram (2025): Landmark SC ruling—denial of property rights violates Article 14 (Equality).

Ground Reality

• Agriculture Census 2015-16: Only 16.7% of ST women own land vs 83.3% of ST men.
• Women contribute more agricultural labour but remain landless.
• Customary denial entrenches economic dependence, gender inequality, and vulnerability.

Arguments for Denial vs Rights

• Denial side: Prevent land alienation to non-tribals; preserve communitarian character of land.
• Rights side: Custom must pass tests of antiquity, continuity, reasonableness, public policy. Most fail gender-justice test under Constitution.

Larger Constitutional & Policy Context

• Fundamental Rights: Article 14 (Equality), Article 15 (No discrimination), Article 21 (Dignity, livelihood).
• Directive Principles: Article 39 (equal rights to adequate means of livelihood, ownership of material resources).
• International commitments: UNDRIP (2007), CEDAW → India bound to protect indigenous women’s rights.

Way Forward – Options for Reform

• Codification: Drafting a Tribal Succession Act, like Hindu Succession Act or Indian Succession Act for Christians.
• Special Statute: Address gender justice while protecting against land alienation (restrict transfers to non-tribals, but not deny inheritance).
• Awareness & Grassroots Change: Strengthen women’s movements within tribal societies.
• Policy Incentives: Land titling in women’s name (already promoted in PMAY-G, land distribution schemes).

Scam space

Why in News?

• A Hyderabad-based retired doctor lost over ₹20 lakh after falling prey to an AI-generated deepfake video on Instagram, featuring Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman endorsing a fraudulent investment scheme.
• Similar scams featuring public figures are rising, exposing gaps in AI regulation, crypto trading oversight, and social media accountability.

Relevance:

• GS2: Governance, regulation of social media platforms, role of state in protecting citizens.
• GS3: Cybersecurity, emerging technologies (AI, blockchain, deepfake risks), economy (crypto regulation).

Practice Question :
The rise of AI-enabled deepfake scams in cryptocurrency markets highlights the regulatory lag between technological innovation and governance. Examine the challenges and suggest a way forward for India.(250 Words)

From Basics

• Deepfake Technology: AI-generated manipulated audio/video that makes it appear as if a person said/did something they never did.
• Cryptocurrency Frauds: Ponzi schemes, fake exchanges, and fabricated trading platforms, often hosted abroad with anonymous transactions via crypto wallets.
• Digital Literacy: Ability of citizens to identify online manipulation, misinformation, and fraud; still weak in India despite high smartphone penetration.
• Social Media Moderation: Platforms like Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook use advisories, reporting mechanisms, and AI moderation but remain reactive rather than proactive.

Overview

• Nature of the Threat
  • Exploits AI deepfake tech + crypto grey zone + digital illiteracy.
  • Creates fabricated credibility by misusing images of ministers/celebrities.
  • Victims realise fraud only at withdrawal stage, when returns are blocked.
• Regulatory & Enforcement Challenges
  • Cryptos not fully regulated in India → fraudsters exploit loopholes.
  • Cross-border operations: Many scams hosted abroad, beyond police jurisdiction.
  • Law enforcement limits: State cybercrime units trained but face scale and jurisdictional barriers.
• Role of Social Media Platforms
  • Act as primary carriers of fraudulent content.
  • Current approach is passive: publish advisories, allow reporting, but slow in removing content.
  • Automated moderation weak in detecting AI deepfakes; manual review delayed.
  • Business model prioritises engagement over strict policing, leading to systemic vulnerabilities.
• Human & Social Impact
  • Financial losses (retail investors, middle-class, elderly).
  • Trust deficit in financial systems and digital platforms.
  • Psychological impact: shame, stress, erosion of confidence in governance.
• Global Dimension
  • Most nations (incl. India) don’t classify crypto scams like conventional securities fraud.
  • Need for international cooperation as scams often involve multi-country wallet chains.

Way Forward

• Stronger Regulation: Define standards for registration, disclosure, and cross-border enforcement in crypto and digital assets.
  • Digital Literacy: Continuous campaigns in schools, colleges, workplaces; integrate into education curricula.
  • Platform Accountability: Mandatory proactive removal of fraudulent content using AI + fact-checking partnerships.
  • AI Governance: Develop detection tools, watermarking for authentic content, and penalties for hosting deepfakes.
  • Public Awareness: Promote caution against “too-good-to-be-true” investment claims and celebrity endorsements.