
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>civilrights &#8211; The Milli Chronicle</title>
	<atom:link href="https://millichronicle.com/tag/civilrights/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://millichronicle.com</link>
	<description>Factual Version of a Story</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:33:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	

 
	<item>
		<title>India’s privacy law faces Supreme Court test amid press freedom concerns</title>
		<link>https://millichronicle.com/2026/03/63789.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NewsDesk MC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AnjaliBhardwaj]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AshwiniVaishnaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CentreForLawAndDemocracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DigitalDataProtection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digitalregulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[globalranking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[india]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[informationaccess]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legalchallenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NarendraModi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policyreform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pressfreedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publicinterest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RTIlaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SupremeCourt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VenkateshNayak]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://millichronicle.com/?p=63789</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[New Delhi-Transparency activists and journalists have challenged the Indian government in the Supreme Court of India over a new privacy]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p><strong>New Delhi-</strong>Transparency activists and journalists have challenged the Indian government in the Supreme Court of India over a new privacy law, arguing it could restrict access to information and have a “chilling” effect on journalism.</p>



<p>At least four petitions are scheduled to be heard on March 23, targeting amendments linked to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act that critics say weaken the country’s two-decade-old Right to Information framework.</p>



<p>The dispute centers on a provision excluding “personal information” from disclosure under the Right to Information Act. Previously, such information could be released if it served the public interest.</p>



<p>Petitioners argue the change could allow authorities to withhold key data, including details about public spending or officials involved in controversial projects, thereby undermining accountability.</p>



<p>Anjali Bhardwaj said the amendment could enable the government to block disclosure of information critical to public scrutiny, while activist Venkatesh Nayak described the move in court filings as a “death knell for participatory democracy.”</p>



<p>The government of Narendra Modi has rejected allegations that it is curbing transparency, saying the law maintains a balance between privacy rights and access to information.</p>



<p>IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw told parliament the changes would “not restrict the disclosure of personal information” and adhere to the principle of “maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions.</p>



<p>”Officials have also denied broader accusations of suppressing dissent, stating that content removal orders are limited to unlawful material.</p>



<p>The controversy comes amid wider scrutiny of India’s transparency framework. The country’s position in a global ranking by the Centre for Law and Democracy has fallen from second place in 2013 to ninth, with researchers citing expanding exemptions under the RTI regime.</p>



<p>Journalists and civil society groups have expressed concern that the amended law, combined with stricter digital regulations, could affect investigative reporting and access to public-interest information.</p>



<p>The privacy legislation also introduces significant financial penalties for non-compliance by technology companies, adding another layer of regulatory oversight in India’s digital ecosystem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
