Why in news?
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023 amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The amendment is so brief that almost any information held by public authorities could now be labelled “personal” and withheld. Transparency advocates fear that the change converts India’s RTI law into a “Right to Deny Information”.
Background and history
India’s RTI Act of 2005 empowers citizens to seek information from government offices. The law draws strength from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech and expression. Over the past two decades, RTI requests have exposed fake beneficiaries, uncovered procurement scams and enabled social audits of welfare schemes. Section 8 of the Act lists specific grounds on which information can be denied; clause 8(1)(j) allowed withholding of personal information only if it had no relation to public interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. A proviso ensured parity by stating that information accessible to Parliament or a State legislature cannot be denied to a citizen.
The DPDP Act of 2023 was introduced to regulate data privacy in the era of digital services. It defines “personal data” very broadly to include anything relating to an individual or even a company. While trying to protect privacy, lawmakers reduced Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to just a few words and removed the proviso. Penalties of up to ₹250 crore for data breaches create an incentive for public information officers to deny requests rather than risk punishment.
Issues and concerns
- Transparency undermined: Routine requests for beneficiary lists, recruitment data or tender documents may be rejected by citing “personal data”, shielding corruption and nepotism.
- Public interest test ignored: The constitutional mandate of maximum disclosure is sidelined. Citizens may be required to prove a “larger public interest” to access records.
- Chilling effect on officials: With severe penalties for breaches, public information officers may prefer to deny requests to avoid liability.
- Weak institutions: Central and State information commissions already suffer large vacancies and delays. Restrictive rules will worsen pendency and discourage appeals.
- Conflict of rights: Balancing privacy (upheld by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case) with the public’s right to know requires nuanced guidelines rather than sweeping exemptions.
Way forward
India’s RTI law is a crucial anti‑corruption tool. To preserve its spirit, lawmakers should restore the proviso that bars discrimination between citizens and legislators. The definition of personal information must be narrowly drawn to cover only sensitive data such as health records or intimate family details. Information commissions need adequate staff, funding and time‑bound disposal norms. The government should publish more datasets proactively — beneficiary lists, tender results, audit findings — to reduce the need for RTI applications. Finally, courts and civil society must ensure that data privacy laws do not become a pretext for official secrecy.
Nepal’s Political Turmoil: A Test Case for India’s Neighbourhood First Policy
Why in news?
In September 2025 Nepal plunged into turmoil when Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli resigned amid street protests. The demonstrations followed a government ban on social media and culminated in the appointment of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as interim prime minister. India, which shares an open border and deep people‑to‑people ties with Nepal, must respond carefully as China expands its footprint in the Himalayan nation.
Historical context
India and Nepal share more than 1,700 km of open borders. A 1950 treaty grants reciprocal rights to live and work in each other’s territory. For decades, India has been Nepal’s largest trade partner and a major investor in hydropower. Nepalese Gurkhas serve in the Indian Army and millions of Nepali workers migrate to Indian cities.
Nepal’s politics have been turbulent since the abolition of its monarchy in 2008. There have been fourteen governments in seventeen years, fragile coalition arrangements and persistent rivalries among the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) and other factions. Anti‑India sentiments flared after India’s 2015 blockade when supplies were choked at border points during protests over the new constitution. Meanwhile China has deepened its influence through infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative, soft‑power activities and mediation in party disputes.
Key concerns for India
- Strategic location: Nepal sits astride the Himalayan passes and the Siliguri corridor (the “chicken’s neck”), a narrow strip connecting mainland India to the northeast. Instability could open doors for cross‑border smuggling and rival intelligence operations.
- Cultural and civilisational ties: Shared Hindu–Buddhist heritage and the presence of a large Madhesi community mean that political upheaval quickly resonates across the border.
- Economic interdependence: India is Nepal’s biggest market for electricity and goods, yet constant churn in Kathmandu delays hydroelectric projects such as Upper Karnali and Arun III.
- China’s growing influence: Beijing funds highways, airports and the Tibet–Kathmandu railway, and offers scholarships and language institutes, gradually shifting Nepal’s dependency.
- Perceptions of interference: Over‑engagement by India risks the “big brother” label, while detachment allows other actors to fill the vacuum. A fine balance is needed.
Way forward
India should adopt a calibrated approach centred on respect for Nepal’s sovereignty. Track 1.5 and Track 2 diplomacy can deepen ties with emerging leaders in provinces and civil society beyond Kathmandu. Fast‑tracking cross‑border infrastructure — railways, integrated check‑posts, power transmission lines — will reinforce interdependence. Hydropower cooperation should be scaled up with equitable tariffs and joint ventures that involve Bangladeshi partners. People‑to‑people initiatives such as scholarships, pilgrimage circuits and tourism campaigns can counter anti‑India narratives, especially among Nepal’s youth. Above all, patience and non‑interference should guide policy: a stable, democratic and prosperous Nepal is the best guarantor of India’s security in the Himalayas.