DPDP Act sparks privacy vs transparency debate

The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules (DPDP Bill 2025), drawn up by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), are designed to facilitate the implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), 2023. The DPDP Act, 2023, lays out guidelines for the collection, processing, and protection of personal data while ensuring individuals’ privacy rights.

The Act was passed in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in August 2023 and subsequently received assent from the President of India. However, the DPDP Bill has stoked a controversy over its ruling on the Right to Information (RTI) Bill. For two decades, the RTI Act has empowered citizens to seek transparency and accountability from government authorities. Would the DPDP Act derail that?

Here are five things you need to know:

• Section 44 (3) of the DPDP Act has been slammed by civil society organisations and opposition parties, as it forbids the revealing of personal information that serves the larger public interest. This could allow government departments to deny information requests by classifying them as “personal”. The right to disclosure was part of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, which also added the crucial proviso stating: “information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
• The stricter regulations on personal data processing could lead to the denial of RTI requests that involve personal information. Activists fear this could hinder investigative journalism and public accountability.
• John Brittas, MP and member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that reviewed the Act, has pointed out that the Data Bill would have a damaging effect on the RTI by way of “dissent notes to the final report”. However, his objections were brushed aside. 
• On the other hand, the Central government, defending its amendment, says that it is consistent with the Puttaswamy ruling of the Supreme Court, holding privacy as a fundamental right. However, citizens and activists have called it a step backwards for democratic accountability. The state also calls it a measure to “prevent misuse and harmonise privacy laws.” But critics counter that the RTI Act has already effectively achieved this balance, as it has allowed the revelation of personal data if and only if it serves the larger public interest. They have asked for the Bill to be rolled back.
• The DPDP Bill embraces a “born digital” philosophy, meaning grievance redressal and data protection mechanisms will be handled digitally. This digital-first approach can pose challenges for citizens unfamiliar with digital platforms. After all, a sizeable number of people from marginalised communities in India do not have access to the internet.

Read more: Bike taxis in Chennai: To ban or not to ban?

Bike taxi regulations under scanner in Karnataka

Bengalureans are reeling under the Karnataka High Court’s ruling that supports the State government’s suspension of bike taxi services in the city. The deadline to suspend operations, initially set for May 14th, has now been extended to June 15th. The court has mandated the State to draft a legal framework within three months to regulate these services run by providers such as Ola, Uber and Rapido in Karnataka. This ruling has sparked debates on transport accessibility, urban congestion, and the gig economy in India’s tech capital. How will this affect the regular citizen?

Here are five crucial points about the issue:

• Rapido and other bike taxi platforms face a steep decline, with possible service shutdowns threatening 1.5 lakh riders and 50 lakh monthly trips. This spells trouble for commuters already struggling with poor last-mile connectivity and rising transport costs — Metro fares are up 70%, while bus fares have gone up by 15%

• But the main reason for the suspension is to ensure ride-hailing platforms follow state-specific regulations. Without proper guidelines for contract carriage permits or transport vehicle registration, they have been operating in a legal grey area. Inconsistencies between central and state-level rules also create complications. The Motor Vehicle Aggregators Guidelines from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways explain that aggregators need to get licenses from state governments and stick to safety. The government has argued that bike taxis with white number plates are illegal under the current rules.

• Delays in policy formulation have created obstacles. The State launched an Electric Bike Taxi Scheme, but later withdrew it due to low adoption and misuse involving non-electric bikes. This highlights the urgent need for clear, enforceable guidelines to promote sustainable and safe mobility.

• As consumer safety is at the heart of rules around bike taxis, the court has referred to a 2019 expert committee report analysing traffic and safety issues. As the correct regulations have not governed driver background checks, vehicle standards, and insurance coverage, such services might be risky. Some platforms, such as Uber, have implemented features like driver identity verification and emergency contact options in their apps. However, these must be complemented with uniform government-mandated standards to improve consumer trust and protect gig workers.

• During the policy drafting period, can the aggregators, sticking to safety norms, be allowed temporary permits? The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) has urged the State to form a joint committee and formulate guidelines for bike taxi aggregators. But auto-rickshaw unions oppose it, as their earnings have declined due to bike taxis. A senior transport department official has agreed to enforce the High Court’s order to stop bike taxi services and then hold a stakeholders’ meeting to enhance the framework.

(Compiled by Revathi Siva Kumar)

Also read:

• Cultivating resilience: Lessons from my organic kitchen garden
• Chennai braces for extreme heat, prepares measures to combat rising temperatures