Thursday, August 24, 2023

Re: [rti4empowerment] Re: Amendment to Section 8(1)(j)

Let us be very clear about 1 thing.

The day some RTI activist fool got political parties declared as public authorities by the CIC, was the day the BJP got the golden pass to sail through any legislation it wants so as to castrate RTI Act once and for all.


On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 11:24 PM Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:
Clash between section 8(2) RTI Act and section 44(3) of DPDP Act is going to be crucial. At this moment it is difficult to predict as both these Acts are central legislations, and section 22 of RTI Act has overriding powers  as non-obstinate clause, and section 38 of Deep Act has power to prevail to the extent of conflict with other laws . Hence we have to see how harmoniously this clash is resolved 

Pralhad Kachare

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, 22:09 rajesh verma, <smilingverma@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
On Monday, 21 August, 2023 at 11:06:03 am IST, shailesh gandhi <shaileshgan@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
shailesh
If 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 Hai
Tel: 91 8976240798




On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 8:23 AM Mahesh Zagade <zmahesh@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 of 
Maharashtra(India)



On 21-Aug-2023, at 7:44 AM, Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:


I have checked final copy of DPDP Act published by Mety GoI the link is below and copy is attached.


Section 44(3) 

(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;".


From the above what is substituted is not clear, does it mean there seems to be no damage to section 8(1)(j) as it was published in the draft bill,   apparently  ? 


***********************
Pralhad Kachare
Cell- 9422750464
***********************


<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 rtitrainers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rtitrainers+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729rRiDdiqaOr4EdraXtR3F3cw20U3yp4HSaOtAdqwAB4mQ%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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CABun1LxuH%3DmV8%2B_A1gXLnbfm%3D6svtA93n8gMdiVTO9akrfh-FQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Posted by at No comments:

[rti4empowerment] Re: Amendment to Section 8(1)(j)

Clash between section 8(2) RTI Act and section 44(3) of DPDP Act is going to be crucial. At this moment it is difficult to predict as both these Acts are central legislations, and section 22 of RTI Act has overriding powers  as non-obstinate clause, and section 38 of Deep Act has power to prevail to the extent of conflict with other laws . Hence we have to see how harmoniously this clash is resolved 

Pralhad Kachare

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, 22:09 rajesh verma, <smilingverma@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
On Monday, 21 August, 2023 at 11:06:03 am IST, shailesh gandhi <shaileshgan@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
shailesh
If 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 Hai
Tel: 91 8976240798




On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 8:23 AM Mahesh Zagade <zmahesh@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 of 
Maharashtra(India)



On 21-Aug-2023, at 7:44 AM, Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:


I have checked final copy of DPDP Act published by Mety GoI the link is below and copy is attached.


Section 44(3) 

(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;".


From the above what is substituted is not clear, does it mean there seems to be no damage to section 8(1)(j) as it was published in the draft bill,   apparently  ? 


***********************
Pralhad Kachare
Cell- 9422750464
***********************


<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 rtitrainers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rtitrainers+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729rRiDdiqaOr4EdraXtR3F3cw20U3yp4HSaOtAdqwAB4mQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, August 21, 2023

Re: [rti4empowerment] Re: Amendment to Section 8(1)(j)

There was nothing left in the RTI Act, all these changes are in any case irrelevant since the RTI Act died the day the foreign financed NGOs began collaborating with the DoPT to destroy it, from inside (Shaliesh Gandhi) and outside (NCPRI stooges)

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 1:28 PM Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:
Still I feel section 8(1) and all exemptions are doubly covered if read section 8(2). 

Govt has removed one qualified exemption of 8(1)(j), however as every exemption 8(1)(j) is also still have some protection in sec 8(2),  whereby it is possible to compel Public Authorities to share information disclosure of which would cause wider public interest. Ofcourse every applicant will not be so literate and empowered. But now it is our duty to propogate that information of public interest will have to be shared and the exemption stands as it is in spirit.Only acid test of what is provided to legislature can be provided to an applicant citizen is removed is great loss. One outer layer of wording and provision is removed. 8(2) still will keep guarding.

Let us read it thoroughly to understand the implications and what inbuilt remedies the RTI Act provided.


Pralhad Kachare

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, 10:57 Venkatesh Nayak, <nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com> wrote:
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).
regards
Venkat

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 08:23, Mahesh Zagade <zmahesh@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 of 
Maharashtra(India)



On 21-Aug-2023, at 7:44 AM, Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:


I have checked final copy of DPDP Act published by Mety GoI the link is below and copy is attached.


Section 44(3) 

(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;".


From the above what is substituted is not clear, does it mean there seems to be no damage to section 8(1)(j) as it was published in the draft bill,   apparently  ? 


***********************
Pralhad Kachare
Cell- 9422750464
***********************


<Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (1).pdf>

--
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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729oey2-H3khYC886e_kiCMPMyMEv7GA8%2B8PGcQWUF0votg%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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CABun1Lydht9CjO5LYi6%3DF4tv0w8%2BKxxdYtyadk-hA0jVwm6PXw%40mail.gmail.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [rti4empowerment] Re: Amendment to Section 8(1)(j)

8(2) gives no such protection as you seem to think.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 1:28 PM Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:
Still I feel section 8(1) and all exemptions are doubly covered if read section 8(2). 

Govt has removed one qualified exemption of 8(1)(j), however as every exemption 8(1)(j) is also still have some protection in sec 8(2),  whereby it is possible to compel Public Authorities to share information disclosure of which would cause wider public interest. Ofcourse every applicant will not be so literate and empowered. But now it is our duty to propogate that information of public interest will have to be shared and the exemption stands as it is in spirit.Only acid test of what is provided to legislature can be provided to an applicant citizen is removed is great loss. One outer layer of wording and provision is removed. 8(2) still will keep guarding.

Let us read it thoroughly to understand the implications and what inbuilt remedies the RTI Act provided.


Pralhad Kachare

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, 10:57 Venkatesh Nayak, <nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com> wrote:
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).
regards
Venkat

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 08:23, Mahesh Zagade <zmahesh@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 of 
Maharashtra(India)



On 21-Aug-2023, at 7:44 AM, Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:


I have checked final copy of DPDP Act published by Mety GoI the link is below and copy is attached.

https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf

Section 44(3) 

(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;".


From the above what is substituted is not clear, does it mean there seems to be no damage to section 8(1)(j) as it was published in the draft bill,   apparently  ? 


***********************
Pralhad Kachare
Cell- 9422750464
***********************


<Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (1).pdf>

--
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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729oey2-H3khYC886e_kiCMPMyMEv7GA8%2B8PGcQWUF0votg%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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CABun1LynHqUnPBwjzwft2mYg9_PqSPiigc6P6xmeqMCW4nUwBA%40mail.gmail.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [rti4empowerment] Amendment to Section 8(1)(j)

Really Disastrous, Now will have to use section 8(2) of RTI as reserved force of law.

Pralhad Kachare

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, 13:14 Sarbajit Roy, <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
It means whole of 8(1)j is substituted by that 1 line.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 7:43 AM Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:
I have checked final copy of DPDP Act published by Mety GoI the link is below and copy is attached.

https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf

Section 44(3) 

(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;".


From the above what is substituted is not clear, does it mean there seems to be no damage to section 8(1)(j) as it was published in the draft bill,   apparently  ? 


***********************
Pralhad Kachare
Cell- 9422750464
***********************


--
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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729rFJGc-4xYMupfZoYe7EbEETV4yxtJ0_e1kXFuOj5Ho9A%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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729pJm4XCtAdA%3DfKSpGmF-Q9f4V84N450ddce%3DPw7vi-UDA%40mail.gmail.com.
Posted by at No comments:

[rti4empowerment] Re: Amendment to Section 8(1)(j)

Still I feel section 8(1) and all exemptions are doubly covered if read section 8(2). 

Govt has removed one qualified exemption of 8(1)(j), however as every exemption 8(1)(j) is also still have some protection in sec 8(2),  whereby it is possible to compel Public Authorities to share information disclosure of which would cause wider public interest. Ofcourse every applicant will not be so literate and empowered. But now it is our duty to propogate that information of public interest will have to be shared and the exemption stands as it is in spirit.Only acid test of what is provided to legislature can be provided to an applicant citizen is removed is great loss. One outer layer of wording and provision is removed. 8(2) still will keep guarding.

Let us read it thoroughly to understand the implications and what inbuilt remedies the RTI Act provided.


Pralhad Kachare

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, 10:57 Venkatesh Nayak, <nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com> wrote:
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).
regards
Venkat

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 08:23, Mahesh Zagade <zmahesh@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 of 
Maharashtra(India)



On 21-Aug-2023, at 7:44 AM, Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:


I have checked final copy of DPDP Act published by Mety GoI the link is below and copy is attached.

https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf

Section 44(3) 

(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;".


From the above what is substituted is not clear, does it mean there seems to be no damage to section 8(1)(j) as it was published in the draft bill,   apparently  ? 


***********************
Pralhad Kachare
Cell- 9422750464
***********************


<Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (1).pdf>

--
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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729oey2-H3khYC886e_kiCMPMyMEv7GA8%2B8PGcQWUF0votg%40mail.gmail.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [rti4empowerment] Amendment to Section 8(1)(j)

It means whole of 8(1)j is substituted by that 1 line.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 7:43 AM Adv. Pralhad Kachare <pkachare@gmail.com> wrote:
I have checked final copy of DPDP Act published by Mety GoI the link is below and copy is attached.

https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf

Section 44(3) 

(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;".


From the above what is substituted is not clear, does it mean there seems to be no damage to section 8(1)(j) as it was published in the draft bill,   apparently  ? 


***********************
Pralhad Kachare
Cell- 9422750464
***********************


--
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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729rFJGc-4xYMupfZoYe7EbEETV4yxtJ0_e1kXFuOj5Ho9A%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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
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.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, August 20, 2023

[rti4empowerment] Amendment to Section 8(1)(j)

I have checked final copy of DPDP Act published by Mety GoI the link is below and copy is attached.

https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf

Section 44(3) 

(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;".


From the above what is substituted is not clear, does it mean there seems to be no damage to section 8(1)(j) as it was published in the draft bill,   apparently  ? 


***********************
Pralhad Kachare
Cell- 9422750464
***********************


--
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 rti4empowerment+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rti4empowerment/CALU729rFJGc-4xYMupfZoYe7EbEETV4yxtJ0_e1kXFuOj5Ho9A%40mail.gmail.com.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)