India’s sunshine law: Clouded by the data privacy bill

In March 2003, the Supreme Court passed a historic verdict that filled a legislative gap.

- AJIT RANADE

It made the disclosure of wealth details and criminal records of election candidates mandatory, via self-sworn affidavits. It based its verdict on the right of voters to know, so that they could make informed decisions. These affidavits would have self-declared information that was far more reliable than the grapevine and press reportage; unless reported by a candidate, any data dissemination could potentially attract defamation charges. Politicians eventually welcomed the change after a few grumbles that the judiciary had invaded the legislative turf. One senior politician and minister, who was known to be wealthy and had a clean image, protested that the revelation of his wealth would expose him to extortion. But that was a mild protest. Everyone agreed that such disclosures were in the public interest and that, on balance, this outweighed the privacy protection concerns of individual candidates. Politicians are in public life, and their privacy claims do not have priority over public accountability. After all, transparency and accountability are the very foundation of good governance and robust democracy. So, although the right to vote is not a fundamental right, the right to know about candidates has acquired constitutional status.

The Right to Information (RTI), a landmark law that codified a constitutional right, was born two years later in October 2005. As we observe its 20th anniversary this month, there is alarm that its potency has gotten significantly diluted in practice.