1. Flight Overreach and Regulatory Amendments


The International Air Transport Association (IATA) reported an increase in incidents: from 1 in 568 flights (2022) to 1 in 480 flights (2023). In India, high-profile cases (like the "Peegate" incident or passengers trying to open emergency exits) have prompted the DGCA to move toward a "Zero Tolerance" policy.


Key Proposed Amendments

​The DGCA is proposing changes to the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937:
  • ​Direct Power to Airlines: Airlines can now impose an immediate flying ban of up to 30 days without waiting for the "Independent Committee" to rule.
  • ​Expanded Categories of Misconduct: The definition of unruly behavior now explicitly includes:
  1. Smoking on board (including e-cigarettes).
  2. ​Consuming alcohol on domestic flights.
  3. ​Tampering with emergency exits.
  4. ​Unauthorized use of life-saving equipment (e.g., life jackets).
  5. ​Engaging in protests or sloganeering.
  6. ​Conduct arising from intoxication.

Safeguards

  • Ground vs. Flight Distinction: There should be a clear distinction between "unruly" behavior on the ground (at the check-in counter) versus "disruptive" behavior during the flight.
  • ​Redressal Mechanisms: Safeguards are needed so passengers can challenge an unfair 30-day ban.     

2. The "Constitutional Sensitivity" of Privacy vs. Transparency

Key Issues & Legal Changes:

  • ​Amendment to Section 8(1)(j): Originally, the RTI Act allowed the withholding of personal information only if it had no relation to public activity or if disclosure caused an "unwarranted invasion of privacy." It also contained a "public interest override," allowing disclosure if justified by a larger public interest.
  • The Shift: The DPDP Act amendment removes this override and creates a near-blanket ban on disclosing "any information which relates to personal information."
  • ​Impact on Transparency: Experts argue this allows authorities to reject RTI requests regarding government officials, procurement records, audit reports, and public spending.

The "Information Asymmetry" Paradox:

  • ​State vs. Citizen: While Section 7 of the DPDP Act allows the State to process citizens' personal data without consent for certain "legitimate uses," the amended RTI Act prevents citizens from seeking similar transparency from the State.
  • ​Chilling Effect on Journalism: Under the DPDP Act, journalists could be classified as "data fiduciaries." Non-compliance with data rules can attract fines up to ₹250 crore, potentially discouraging investigative journalism.

Global & Judicial Context:

  • ​Comparison with EU: Unlike the DPDP Act, the European Union’s GDPR balances privacy with transparency to ensure accountability.
  • ​Legal Precedent: The article highlights the 2019 Central Public Information Officer judgment, which maintained that personal information should be private unless disclosure is necessary for a larger public interest.

Significance:

The RTI Act is viewed as a vital tool that reduced information asymmetry between the State and its citizens. The Constitution Bench will now determine if the new privacy protections under the DPDP Act unconstitutionally dilute the citizen's right to hold the government accountable.



Practice MCQ 

Q)The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 was enacted primarily to:
A. Promote digital trade
B. Regulate cyber warfare
C. Enable lawful processing of personal data while protecting individual privacy.
D. Replace the IT Act entirely





Correct Answer : C