ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಉದ್ಯೋಗಗಳು
ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ವಿವಿಧ ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ 708 ಉದ್ಯೋಗಗಳಿಗೆ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ಕೊನೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ 01-11-2025
--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. VermaOn Thursday, 24 August, 2023 at 11:27:08 pm IST, 'rajesh verma' via RTI Trainers Forum <rtitrainers@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. VermaOn 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
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 <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 ofMaharashtra(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 KachareCell- 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.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"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/837219203.2332396.1692895154682%40mail.yahoo.com.
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 resolvedPralhad Kachare--On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, 22:09 rajesh verma, <smilingverma@yahoo.co.in> 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. VermaOn 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
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 <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 ofMaharashtra(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 KachareCell- 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.
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 <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
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 <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 ofMaharashtra(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 KachareCell- 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.
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).regardsVenkatOn 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 ofMaharashtra(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 KachareCell- 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.
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).regardsVenkatOn 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 ofMaharashtra(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 KachareCell- 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.
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.pdfSection 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 KachareCell- 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.
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 <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 ofMaharashtra(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 KachareCell- 9422750464***********************
<Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (1).pdf>
--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.pdfSection 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 KachareCell- 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.
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"RS DalviThe latest statement of CDS Rawat relegating the Indian Air Force to a support role has a direct correlation to the ongoing Rafale jet corruption investigation being conducted in France.Such worthless political appointees, selected only for their incompetence and ass licking abilities, seriously jeopardize and defame India's defence forces at this critical juncture in time.
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
With the most unfortunate and horrifying custodial death of 84 year old Jesuit Priest Stan Swamy, maybe it is high time to revisit the jail rules. It may be improper to detain people over the age of 80 in jails. Those who have to be kept in detention could be possibly placed under house arrest or in old age homes where their age related special needs are taken care of.
Prison ensures social isolation and confinement which can result in deterioration in mental and physical health through neglect and fear especially in the elderly and the vulnerable. Far from achieving the desired outcome of prison which is reformation, to lead law abiding and useful lives in prison and when they are released, their time in prison can be a retrograde step where they either suffer through ill health and even death and for those that survive, they will be more resentful of the prison machinery and society.
Prisons should only be used to reform and to protect the peace of the man in the street and for providing a sanction against very serious wrongdoing. The detention of people over the age of 80 in poorly kept prisons who through frailty or other illness is a sad reflection on society and a failure to deal with people humanely. It can also sometimes be a waste of taxpayers' money. Their reform and health must be cared for and addressed in a different and special way.
Almost everyone over 80 is grappling with serious health issues so the jails are not conducive for such aged people. Elderly persons admitted to jails require a different sort of health care. Concerns about the health status of older inmates and their chronic health issues has to be addressed in a special way and the inability of most jails to accommodate their special needs cannot be just overlooked.
Prisons have a duty of care towards all prisoners and must take all reasonable steps to keep them safe while in custody. The prison has a responsibility to ensure the safety of prisoners – which includes protecting those at special risk of injury or who are vulnerable.
The prison system must never be inherently unjust and inhumane. We should take heed of the wise words of Christopher Zoukis, a leading voice on criminal justice reform in America and author of many books on prison life, when he said 'If we treat prisoners like animals, the whole time they are locked up, that's what we will get when they are back on the streets. – wild, dangerous animals.' In the case of the elderly if they are lucky to be back on the streets, we will get a severely ill and demoralized human being staring tragedy through a lack of care. This cannot be a true reflection of a caring and progressive society.
This issue would be a fit one for the Chief Justice of India to Suo Motu take cognizance so that appropriate directions could be issued which would be applicable nationwide on the environment in which very elderly persons should be detained and taken care of.
Adv. Aires Rodrigues
C/G-2, Shopping Complex
Ribandar Retreat
Ribandar – Goa – 403006
Mobile No: 9822684372
Office Tel No: (0832) 2444012
Email: airesrodrigues1@gmail.com
You can also reach me on
Facebook.com/ AiresRodrigues
Twitter@rodrigues_aires
