Context: The Right to Information Act was introduced as a bulwark against corruption and non-transparent functioning of government and its agencies. However, over the period, the Act has been weakened by the government and judicial interpretations.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Right to Information Act, 2005: Significance and Challenges.
RTI as a Tool for Empowerment
- The Right to Information Act, 2005, was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in governance.
- It recognises that citizens are the true rulers in a democracy and gives them the power to seek information from government institutions. The RTI Act is considered one of the most progressive transparency laws in the world.
- The Act was legislated with the intention to curb corruption, reduce bureaucratic discretion, and ensure participatory governance.
- For example: The RTI Act helped expose corruption in the allocation of 2G spectrum and coal block allocations (2010-12), leading to many prosecutions and policy reforms.
Challenges facing the RTI Act
Despite initial success, the RTI Act has faced multiple issues—administrative, judicial, and legislative, which has led to its dilution.
1. Government and Administrative Challenges:
- Within a year of its enactment, the government attempted to amend the RTI Act to restrict access to certain categories of information. Widespread public protests forced the government to withdraw the amendments.
- However, successive governments have continued efforts to weaken the law through administrative means. E.g., In 2019, the RTI (Amendment) Act was passed, which:
- Weakened the independence of Information Commissioners (ICs) by allowing the government to determine their tenure and salaries.
- Increased bureaucratic control over the appointment process.
2. Delays in Appointing Information Commissioners:
- The State and Central Information Commissions (ICs) are the final appellate bodies under the RTI Act.
- Many ICs function with fewer members than sanctioned, causing severe case backlogs.
- Example: In 2023, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had over 30,000 pending cases due to delays in appointments.
- State ICs like Maharashtra and Karnataka had similar backlogs due to vacant posts.
3. Post-Retirement Benefits:
- Many RTI commissioners are retired bureaucrats who see their roles as post-retirement sinecures.
- Unlike High Court judges, who dispose of over 2,500 cases a year, RTI commissioners handle far fewer cases.
- Some commissioners work only a few hours a day, delaying information access.
4. Judicial Setbacks to the Act: Shift from Transparency to Secrecy:
- Supreme Court’s shift in stance: Courts have upheld RTI as a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a).
- However, in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court stated that:
- RTI should not be used indiscriminately as it could burden the administration.
- Excessive RTI requests could hamper efficiency and national development.
- RTI should not become a tool of oppression or intimidation against honest officials.
- This led to concerns like:
- The judgment framed RTI users as troublemakers, creating a negative perception of transparency activists.
- Government officials began using this judgment to deny information, citing "burden on administration." Example: Initially, several RTI requests regarding electoral bonds and the PM-CARES Fund were denied using this justification.
5. Expansion of ‘Personal Information’ Exemption:
(Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs CIC, 2012)
- In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that:
- Information related to public servants' assets, memos, and disciplinary actions could be exempted as personal information.
- The test of public interest was ignored, even though the RTI Act allows disclosure if public interest justifies it.
- This created a precedent for denying crucial information under Section 8(1)(j) (privacy exemption). Example:
- RTI requests for civil servants' property declarations, corruption complaints, and tax returns of public officials were denied using this judgment.
- Even cases of proven corruption in public service were shielded from scrutiny.
6. Weakening of RTI Through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023:
- The DPDPA, 2023, amended the RTI Act by removing the public interest clause from Section 8(1)(j).
- This means any information classified as ‘personal data’ can now be denied outright. This goes against the original intent of the RTI Act, which balanced privacy with transparency.
The impact of the above issues is that the citizens seeking information face delays of over a year, making RTI ineffective for timely decision-making.
Implications of dilution of RTI Act
- Decline in Whistleblower Protection
- Over 100 RTI activists have been attacked or killed for exposing corruption.
- Weakening RTI endangers activists by reducing public accountability.
- Example: RTI activists like Satish Shetty (Maharashtra), Amit Jethwa (Gujarat), and Lalit Mehta (Jharkhand) were killed for exposing corruption in land and mining projects.
- RTI is Being Converted into "Right to Deny Information (RDI)"
- The cumulative effect of government inaction, judicial decisions, and legislative amendments has led to a decline in RTI’s effectiveness.
Way Forward to Strengthen RTI Act
Institutional Reforms:
- Mandatory timelines for case disposal: Like courts, RTI commissions should have fixed deadlines for hearing appeals.
- Transparent and merit-based selection: Information Commissioners should include civil society members, transparency activists, and legal experts.
Judicial review and reforms:
- Review of adverse court rulings: Parliament must amend the RTI Act to restore the public interest clause in privacy exemptions.
- Protection for whistleblowers: The Whistleblower Protection Act (2014) must be fully implemented.
Citizen and media mobilisation:
- Civil society and the media must actively defend the RTI Act from further dilution.
- Public awareness campaigns to help citizens understand their rights under RTI.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court in multiple judgments (Raj Narain Case, 1975) has upheld the Right to Information as a part of freedom of speech and expression. Democracy thrives on informed citizens and restricting RTI weakens public participation.




