Senior Congress Leader Jairam Ramesh On Sunday (April 13. 2025) Said That Deletion of the provision in the rti act that collects Citizens’ Right to Information as Being at Par with That of Legislats is “Complety Unwarrant”, and urged it side, and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and ,,,, and urged it side ,, and ,,, and urged it side ,,, and ,, and ,,, and ,,, and ,, and ,,, ,,,, and ,, and ,,,, and ,,,, and ,,,, and ,,,, and ,,,, and ,,,, and Ashwini. Made to the original legislation of 2005.
Ramesh’s statement occurred days later after VAISHNAW responded to the previous letter of the Congress leader in what had expressed concern in section 44 (3) or the Digital Personal Data Protection Law (DPDP) 2023 What right to inhibit “Share Personal 2005.
Mr. Vaishnaw had responded to Ramesh, saying that the personal details that are subject to public dissemination under several laws will be discovered continuous by virtue of the RTI Law after the implementation of the new data protection rule.
“Thank you very much for your response dated April 10, 2025, to my letter of March 23, 2025, with respect to the long -range amendment made to the RTI Law, 2005 through section 44 (3) of the Law on Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP), 2023.
“Now I want to make four points through a setback to his defense of the amendment that destroys the RTI,” Rameh said in his letter to Vaishnaw on Sunday.
“First, section 3 of the DPDP Law, 2023, cited in its letter as protection revelations under the RTI Law of 2005, is totally irrelevant since section 8 (1) of the RTI Law of 2005 has been drastically modified.
“Section 3 of the DPDP Law will now only protect the disseminations according to the modified RTI Law, which exempts all personal information from being accessible,” said the Secretary General of Congress.
The operation of the RTI Law of 2005, informed by several judgments by the Supreme Court and several higher courts, has shown that the law can retain the dissemination of personal information that does not have public disk activity in its public activity in its public toshid.
The elimination of turkey in section 8 (1) of the RTI Law that recognizes the right of citizens to information as a bee along with that of legislators is “completely unjustified”, he is happy.
“In fact, that turkey is applicable not only to the exemption of personal information, but all exemptions in section 8 (1) of the RTI Law of 2005. Fourth, you mention Judge Puttaswamy of the Supreme Court. It must be amended.
“The trial reinforces that safeguarding personal privacy and institutional transparency of the promotion are not mutual exclusive, but they are jointly essential,” Ramesh argued.
“Therefore, I would be strongly again to think, review and repeal the amendment made to the RTI law, 2005. As it will have been, this issue has also exercised a broad spectrum of civil society people,” says Rameh, and politician VA and political party.
Rameh in his letter dated March 23 said that section 44 (3) of the DPDP Law prohibits sharing personal information under the Law of Information of 2005.
He had said section 44 (3) of the Data Protection Law, 2023 seeks to replace the J clause (information related to personal information) in subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Law on Information Law, 2005.
In addition, he had said that everything in the subsection is eliminated due to change, including the prisiso that declared that “the information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature will not be denied will not deny any person.”
“The prison in section 8 (1) (J) of the RTI Law of 2005 that gives citizens the same right to information as legislats that represent the issue is fully eliminated,” Ramesh said.
Section 8 (1) existing RTI Law of 2005 had enough Guardrails to protect the unjustified invasion of privacy, he had argued.
In his response, the minister gave Section 3 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Law (DPDP) 2023 to explain the government’s position.
In accordance with section 3 of the DPDP Law, the provisions of the law will not apply to the personal data processed by an individual for any personal or domestic purpose and personal data that are made available to the public by the individual I have Home Howation Offiate Hotiate Hotiate Hootate Hootate Hootate Hootate Hootatatatat in India so that said personal data are publicly notable.
Section 44 (3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Law 2023 seeks to replace clause 8 (1) (J) in the RTI Law of 2005 to deny sharing personal information under the RTI Law of 2005.
The opposition of India Bloc on Thursday had demanded the repeal of certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Law (DPDP), telling that the thesis sought to reduce access to public information under the pretext of safeguarding privacy.
Some leaders of the India block, including Gaurav Gogoi (Congress) and MM Abdulla (DMK), had addressed a joint press conference in search of the repeal of section 44 (3) of the DPDP Law that was approved by Parliament in 2023.
They had also said that they have signed a joint memo for the repeal of this section and will be presented to the Minister of Information and Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw.
Published – April 13, 2025 06:26 PM IST