Data Protection Act vs the Right to Information Act

Why in News?

The recent challenge before the Supreme Court of India regarding amendments to the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act) has reignited the debate on the balance between transparency and privacy.

What is the constitutional background?

• Right to Privacy – In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, and as part of freedoms guaranteed under Article 19.
• The Court directed the government to establish a comprehensive data protection regime, which eventually led to the DPDP Act, 2023.
• Right to Information – The RTI Act, 2005 operationalizes the citizen’s right to know, derived from:
  • Article 19(1) (a) – Freedom of speech and expression
  • Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that transparency strengthens democracy and accountability.

How Was the DPDP Act Framed?

• B. N. Srikrishna committee – It was constituted to draft a data protection framework.
• The committee submitted its report in July 2018.
• DPDP Act – After multiple revisions, Parliament passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
• The Act provides a framework for processing personal data of individuals (data principals) by entities (data fiduciaries).

What is the core controversy?

• Position Under the RTI Act (Before Amendment) – Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempted disclosure of personal information if:
  • It had no relation to public activity or interest, OR
  • It caused unwarranted invasion of privacy
• However, disclosure was allowed if larger public interest justified it.
• This created a balancing mechanism between transparency and privacy.
• Amendment Through DPDP Act (Section 44(3)) – Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to provide a blanket exemption for personal information—without explicit reference to the public interest override.
• Government’s Argument – Privacy is a fundamental right and cannot be diluted.
• Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still permits disclosure if public interest outweighs harm.
• Petitioners’ Argument – The amendment removes the proportionality test.
• It undermines the RTI Act’s core objective of ensuring accountability.
• It may enable authorities to deny even procurement, audit, or corruption-related information under the guise of “personal information.”
• The petitions argue that the amendment is ultra vires the Constitution.

What are the key issues identified?

• Transparency vs Privacy – Both are fundamental rights.
• The challenge lies in maintaining a proportionate balance.
• The earlier Section 8(1)(j) explicitly incorporated proportionality.
  The amended version may tilt the balance excessively toward privacy.
• Impact on Anti-Corruption Efforts – Previously, disclosure of:
  • Assets and liabilities of public servants
  • Public spending records
  • Procurement details, was possible under “larger public interest.”
• The amendment could potentially restrict such disclosures.
• Doctrine of Proportionality – In privacy jurisprudence post-Puttaswamy case, restrictions must satisfy:
  • Legality
  • Legitimate aim
  • Necessity
  • Proportionality
• The removal of public interest override raises questions under this doctrine.
• Judicial Way Forward – The Supreme Court has indicated it may:
• Define the scope of “personal information”
• Lay down guidelines balancing privacy and transparency
• Scholars argument – Many scholars argue that:
  • Section 8(1)(j) should revert to its earlier form
  • The RTI Act’s specific balancing clause is superior to the general override under Section 8(2)

What lies ahead?

• The issue is not a contest between privacy and transparency but a search for constitutional harmony between the two.
• A democratic state requires:
  • Protection of personal data
  • Robust transparency mechanisms
• The challenge before the Supreme Court is to ensure that in safeguarding privacy, the citizen’s right to know is not disproportionately curtailed.

Reference

The Hindu| DPDP Act vs RTI Act 2005

Data Protection Act vs the Right to Information Act

Why in News?

The recent challenge before the Supreme Court of India regarding amendments to the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act) has reignited the debate on the balance between transparency and privacy.

What is the constitutional background?

• Right to Privacy – In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, and as part of freedoms guaranteed under Article 19.
• The Court directed the government to establish a comprehensive data protection regime, which eventually led to the DPDP Act, 2023.
• Right to Information – The RTI Act, 2005 operationalizes the citizen’s right to know, derived from:
  • Article 19(1) (a) – Freedom of speech and expression
  • Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that transparency strengthens democracy and accountability.

How Was the DPDP Act Framed?

• B. N. Srikrishna committee – It was constituted to draft a data protection framework.
• The committee submitted its report in July 2018.
• DPDP Act – After multiple revisions, Parliament passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
• The Act provides a framework for processing personal data of individuals (data principals) by entities (data fiduciaries).

What is the core controversy?

• Position Under the RTI Act (Before Amendment) – Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempted disclosure of personal information if:
  • It had no relation to public activity or interest, OR
  • It caused unwarranted invasion of privacy
• However, disclosure was allowed if larger public interest justified it.
• This created a balancing mechanism between transparency and privacy.
• Amendment Through DPDP Act (Section 44(3)) – Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to provide a blanket exemption for personal information—without explicit reference to the public interest override.
• Government’s Argument – Privacy is a fundamental right and cannot be diluted.
• Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still permits disclosure if public interest outweighs harm.
• Petitioners’ Argument – The amendment removes the proportionality test.
• It undermines the RTI Act’s core objective of ensuring accountability.
• It may enable authorities to deny even procurement, audit, or corruption-related information under the guise of “personal information.”
• The petitions argue that the amendment is ultra vires the Constitution.

What are the key issues identified?

• Transparency vs Privacy – Both are fundamental rights.
• The challenge lies in maintaining a proportionate balance.
• The earlier Section 8(1)(j) explicitly incorporated proportionality.
  The amended version may tilt the balance excessively toward privacy.
• Impact on Anti-Corruption Efforts – Previously, disclosure of:
  • Assets and liabilities of public servants
  • Public spending records
  • Procurement details, was possible under “larger public interest.”
• The amendment could potentially restrict such disclosures.
• Doctrine of Proportionality – In privacy jurisprudence post-Puttaswamy case, restrictions must satisfy:
  • Legality
  • Legitimate aim
  • Necessity
  • Proportionality
• The removal of public interest override raises questions under this doctrine.
• Judicial Way Forward – The Supreme Court has indicated it may:
• Define the scope of “personal information”
• Lay down guidelines balancing privacy and transparency
• Scholars argument – Many scholars argue that:
  • Section 8(1)(j) should revert to its earlier form
  • The RTI Act’s specific balancing clause is superior to the general override under Section 8(2)

What lies ahead?

• The issue is not a contest between privacy and transparency but a search for constitutional harmony between the two.
• A democratic state requires:
  • Protection of personal data
  • Robust transparency mechanisms
• The challenge before the Supreme Court is to ensure that in safeguarding privacy, the citizen’s right to know is not disproportionately curtailed.

Reference

The Hindu| DPDP Act vs RTI Act 2005

Rethinking Tribal Women’s Inheritance Rights

Why in News?

The question of women’s inheritance rights in tribal communities remains unresolved - Customary laws of most tribal communities deny absolute property rights to their women, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 keeps tribal women out of its purview.

What are the key Supreme Court Judgements?

• Ram Charan v. Sukhram (July 2025)
• The SC ruled that tribal women are entitled to equal inheritance rights as men, declaring that excluding them is discriminatory and unconstitutional, violates their fundamental right to equality (Article 14).
• The Court held that customary practices cannot override constitutional rights to equality, placing the burden on parties to prove if custom forbids female inheritance.
• Nawang v. Bahadur (October 2025)
• The SC ruled that the Hindu Succession Act cannot apply to Scheduled Tribes under any circumstances, reaffirming the validity of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• Background – It overturned a Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order that had extended inheritance rights to “Hinduised” tribal daughters under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• It reaffirmed that only Parliament has the authority to extend the Act to tribal communities.
• The High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by directing legislative changes.
• It affirmed that tribal inheritance remains governed by customary practices, unless the Central government officially intervenes.

What about the SC’s view on defining the term ‘Hindu’?

• Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya (1966) – The SC said that Hinduism is not a religion in the narrow sense but “a way of life.”
• Hinduism doesn’t have one founder, one god, one fixed belief system, or one set of rituals.
• It’s not a religion in the narrow sense of having a single prophet or dogma.
• Instead, it’s best understood as a broad, flexible way of life that can include many different practices, philosophies, and traditions.
• Conversion – A person can be a Hindu either by birth or by conversion.
• Conversion means a bonafide intention to follow a particular faith with an unequivocal conduct expressing sufficient evidence of conversion.
• Tribal link – A converted person continues to be a member of the tribe unless his ancestors had converted long time ago and abandoned tribal customs long ago.
• The Problem with “Hinduisation”
• Earlier practice – The Courts used to broadened Section 2(1) of the Hindu Succession Act to include Scheduled Tribes, reasoning they fell under the definition of “Hindu.”
• Contradiction – But this went against Section 2(2), which clearly says the Act does not apply to them.
• This practice pressured tribal women to choose between their tribal identity and becoming followers of Hinduism.
• Constitutional concern – This undermined the guarantee to protect the unique identity of tribal people while also perpetuating gender discrimination.

What is the Hindu Succession Act?

• Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – It deals with the succession and inheritance of property of Hindus in India.
• The act also includes intestate or unwilled (testamentary) succession.
• It guarantees equal shares for male and female heirs.

What does the law say on female inheritance?

• Intestate Succession – If a man dies without leaving a will, and he has a female heir, the property will pass according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act rather than by the old rule of survivorship.
• Section 6 of the act – Under the 2005 amendment, daughters are recognized as coparceners by birth.
• This means they hold the same position as sons in the family property, regardless of their marital status or financial condition.
• Equal Rights & Liabilities – A daughter has full rights to inherit coparcenary property just like a son.
• Alongside these rights, she also shares the same responsibilities and liabilities attached to the property.

What are the inheritance rights of tribal women?

• Customary laws governing tribes – The Scheduled Tribes of India follow customary laws in matters of inheritance, marriage, and succession, these practices are distinct from mainstream statutory frameworks.
• Exclusion from Succession Acts – Inheritance rights of tribal women are not covered under either the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• Constitutional safeguards – Tribal customary laws are protected under several provisions of the Indian Constitution, which recognizes the need to preserve indigenous identity and autonomy.
• Persistent discrimination – Despite these safeguards, customary tribal laws continue to discriminate against women, especially in succession matters, leaving them without equal property rights.

Why tribal women are denied rights on inheritance of property?

• There are two laws in India namely, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which deal with intestate succession of Christians and Hindus, respectively.
• Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Not explicitly exempts tribes; but state government has the power to exclude any tribal community or groups from its application.
• Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Explicitly exempts tribes under section 2(2) of the act.

What lies ahead?

• Special tribal inheritance law – Introduce a special enactment governing inheritance rights among the indigenous population, ensuring gender parity while respecting cultural identity.
• Codifying customary laws – The law of succession in other States with significant tribal populations on the lines of Mizoram (codified its customary succession laws) could provide a solution to ensure gender parity while preserving tribal identity.
• Statutory expansion – Parliament could expand another statute (outside the Hindu Succession Act) to cover tribal inheritance rights to avoid assimilation pressures while ensuring equal rights.

Reference

The Hindu | Rethinking tribal women’s inheritance rights

SC to review DPDP-RTI Conflict

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court referred petitions challenging the DPDP Act amendment to the RTI Act (blanket exemption for personal information) to a Constitution Bench.

• Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act – Provides legal framework for the protection of personal data of individuals (known as data principals) which they share with other persons, companies and government entities (data fiduciaries).
• Origin of DPDP Act – Puttaswamy Judgment (2017) – Declared Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 and linked to Article 19.
• Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee (2017–18) – Proposed data protection framework.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was enacted to provide citizens with the right to seek information from public authorities.

• DPDP Amends RTI – RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) (Earlier) – Information relating to personal information could be disclosed if the appropriate authority was satisfied that a larger public interest justified the disclosure.
• DPDP Act Section 44(3) – Amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to provide a blanket exemption to any information which relates to personal information, without any exceptions.
• Issue – Blanket Exemption – Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to provide a blanket exemption for any information relating to personal information without exception.
• RTI Balance Removed – Earlier, personal information could be disclosed if a larger public interest justified it, and this balancing mechanism has been removed.
• Constitutional Challenge – The amendment is challenged as ultra vires because it violates the Right to Information, which the Supreme Court recognizes as a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21.
• Transparency Impact – Earlier, assets and liabilities of public servants were disclosed in the public interest to probe corruption.

The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) report titled “Right to Information: Master Key to Good Governance” positioned the RTI Act (2005) as the primary tool to shift administration from a culture of secrecy to openness.

• Risk of Over-Exemption – Authorities can reject requests related to procurement records, audit reports, or public spending by claiming they involve personal information.

Reference

TH | SC to review DPDP-RTI Conflict

Tetanus & Adult Diphtheria (Td) Vaccine

Why in News?

Recently, the Union Health Minister launched the indigenously manufactured Td vaccine in Kasauli.

• Td vaccine offers protection against two diseases – Tetanus and Diphtheria. 
• Aim – To minimise side effects in older children and adults, compared to the high-dose version (D) used for infants.

The diphtheria disease is caused by the same bacteria (Corynebacterium diphtheriae) across all ages.

• Component – Contains Tetanus antigen and a lower concentration of diphtheria antigen (d).
• Developed by – Central Research Institute (CRI), Himachal Pradesh.
• Coverage – Td Vaccine introduced for supply under the Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP).
  • UIP covers 11 vaccines against 12 diseases.
• Benefits – Dual Protection – Protects against both tetanus and diphtheria, unlike Tetanus Toxoid (TT).
• Diphtheria Control – Prevents diphtheria resurgence and maintains long-term immunity after childhood Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus (DPT) vaccination.
• Applicability – Safe for pregnant women and older adults.
• Recommendation – The WHO recommended replacing TT with Td in 2006.
• The National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW), recommended replacing TT with Td in India’s immunisation programme for all age groups, including pregnant women.
  • 133 countries have replaced TT with the Td vaccine.

Tetanus Toxoid (TT) Vaccine

• The TT vaccine contains the inactivated tetanus toxin (tetanus toxoid) of Clostridium tetani.
• Immune Action – Stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies that neutralise tetanus toxins.
• Beneficiaries – Used for infants, children, adults, pregnant women, and injured persons.
• Neonatal Prevention – Immunisation of women of childbearing age to prevent neonatal tetanus.
• Booster – Given every 10 years or after high-risk injury if last dose was more than 5 years ago.

Diphtheria & Tetanus

• India’s Disease burden – Tetanus – India eliminated maternal and neonatal tetanus in 2015, but constant vaccination is still required to prevent sporadic cases from soil-borne spores.
• Diphtheria – According to the National Health Profile (NHP), diphtheria cases in India surged from 1,586 in 2020 to 3,677 in 2021, with 10 states accounting for 84% of the burden.
  • This resurgence was noticed among older children and adolescents due to waning immunity.

Reference

1. PIB | Tetanus & Adult Diphtheria (Td) Vaccine
2. WHO | Tetanus
3. WHO | Diphtheria

New Shalimar Wheat

Why in News?

Recently, the scientists at SKUAST-Kashmir developed new wheat varieties to stabilise the rice–wheat cropping cycle in Kashmir.

• Wheat – It is a rabi crop sown in October and harvested in early summer.
• Wheat varieties from sub-tropical regions matured late (June–July), disrupting the rice–wheat rotation.
• In Kashmir, rice is the dominant kharif crop, requiring fields to be vacated by May–June.
• New Wheat Varieties –
  • Shalimar Wheat-4 (SW-4)
  • Shalimar Wheat-3 (SW-3)
• Key Features – Early Maturity – Fits into the rice–wheat cropping system.
  • SW-4 – Matures by the last week of May.
  • SW-3 – Matures by the first week of June.
• High Yielding –SW-3 has potential productivity of up to 38 quintals per hectare.
• Cold Tolerance – Agronomic traits and cold tolerance similar to earlier wheat varieties.
• Disease Resistance – Resistant to yellow rust, a fungal disease-causing stunting and yield loss in Kashmir.
• Biofortification (SW-3) – Iron and zinc content more than 40 ppm and protein content 12%.
• Altitude Suitability – Suitable for mid-altitude regions up to about 1,850 m above sea level.
• Dual Use – Wheat grown for grain and fodder, important for winter livestock feed.
• Process – Conventional Breeding – Developed through cross-breeding and selection.
• Testing Process – Pedigree selection (selection of the best generation of plants), multi-location testing, and farmer field trials.
• Timeline – Development and validation took 9–10 years.
• Significance – Enables timely rice transplantation, strengthens food security and farmer livelihoods, reduces rust-related crop losses, and benefits remote farmers through seed distribution.

Reference

TH | New Shalimar Wheat

India-Brazil MoU on Critical Minerals

Why in News?

Recently, India and Brazil signed an MoU on rare earths and critical minerals during President Lula da Silva’s state visit to India

• Critical Minerals – They are both primary and processed minerals that are essential inputs in the production process of an economy.
  • Its supplies are likely to be disrupted due to the risks of non-availability or unaffordable price spikes.

India-Brazil MoU

• Aim – To strengthen supply chains and enhance strategic cooperation in critical minerals.
• Scope of Cooperation – Covers the full value chain from exploration, mining, processing, recycling, and refining.
• Encourages long-term investments and supply stability.
• Benefits for India – Reduces import dependence on China for rare earths and critical minerals.
• Strengthens bargaining power with other suppliers.
• Signals supply security for domestic industries like EVs, electronics, defence and green technologies.
• Benefits for Brazil – Promotes exploration of untapped reserves (only around 30% explored).
• Attracts Indian investment and long-term buyers.
• Encourages value addition within Brazil instead of raw export.
• Trade & Strategic support – Both countries aim to double bilateral trade to USD 30 billion by 2030.
• Supports South-South cooperation and strengthens resilience against export controls and geopolitical shocks.
• Complements India’s participation in the U.S.-led Pax Silica initiative.
• Reinforces collaboration in technology, renewable energy, and strategic sectors within BRICS.
• Significance – The MoU ensures secure, diversified access to critical minerals, supports domestic industrial growth, and deepens India-Brazil strategic and economic partnership.

India’s Domestic Efforts in Critical Minerals

• National Critical Mineral Mission (2024–2031) – Covers exploration, mining, beneficiation, processing, and recovery from end-of-life products.
  • National Critical Mineral Stockpile (NCMS) is an initiative under the NCMM to ensure the availability of rare earth elements in the country.

Rare earth elements (REEs)—a subset of critical minerals and materials. REEs include a group of 17 minerals vital for electric vehicles, wind turbines and electronics due to their unique magnetic and electrical properties.

• Supply Diversification – India is exploring overseas acquisitions and partnerships (e.g., Argentina, Chile).
• Manufacturing Initiatives – Plans to produce rare-earth permanent magnets domestically by 2026.
• Policy Support – Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act 2023, customs duty reductions for imports and recycling of critical minerals.

Quick Fact

References

1. TH | India-Brazil critical minerals MoU
2. ToI | India Brazil Rare earth deals
3. The Diplomat | India-Brazil Critical Minerals Pact

Renaming from Kerala to Keralam

Why in News?

Recently, the Union Cabinet approved the proposal to alter the name of the State of Kerala to Keralam.

Origin of the names

• Ancient Record – The earliest epigraphic record that mentions Kerala is Emperor Asoka’s Rock Edict II of 257 BC.
  • The inscription refers to the local ruler as Keralaputra, and also the son of Chera, referring to the Chera dynasty.
• About Keralam, scholars believe it could have originated from Cheram.
• Reorganisation – When it was decided to reorganise states on a linguistic basis, the State Reorganisation Commission of the Union Government recommended the creation of the state of Kerala.
• State Formation – The state of Kerala came into being on November 1, 1956.
• In Malayalam, the state was referred to as Keralam, while in English it was Kerala.

Constitutional Provision

• Article 3 – Under the article, the Parliament may take the following actions –
  • It can form a completely new State by separating the territory from any State by uniting two or more states or parts of states, or by uniting any territory to a part of any state.
  • It can increase or decrease the area of any State.
  • It can change/alter the name of any State.
  • It can also make changes to the boundaries of a State.
• President’s Recommendation – A Bill for altering a State’s name can only be introduced after the President’s recommendation.
• State Legislature Opinion – The Bill is sent to the affected State Assembly for its views within a specified period; the opinion is advisory and not binding.
• Process – The State Assembly passes a resolution for the name change and sends it to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
• The Ministry forwards it to the President for recommendation.
• The Bill is introduced in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha and passed by a simple majority.
• After Parliamentary approval, the Bill is sent back to the President for assent.
• Once signed, the name is officially altered in the First and Fourth Schedules of the Constitution.

References

1. PIB | Alteration of State Name from Kerala to Keralam
2. TH | Kerala to Keralam