Right to Information Act of 2005 has been instrumental in promoting transparency and accountability in India. However, recent developments do threaten it. Appointments of information commissioners getting delayed, appointments being arbitrary, and changes in the legislation itself have weakened this Act. The challenge before us is to address these issues in the interest of furthering the spirit and functioning of this law as we enter its twentieth year.
| GS Paper | GS Paper III |
| Topics for UPSC Prelims | Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Emergency period, State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975), Freedom of Information Act, Central Information Commission, Whistleblowers Protection Act, Common Service Centres. |
| Topics for UPSC Mains | .Evolution of Right to Information in India, Issues Undermining RTI’s Effectiveness. |
This editorial is based on “Scuttling people’s right to information” published in The Hindu on October 14, 2024. It highlights the challenges faced by the RTI Act due to government inaction and legislative changes.
For any UPSC aspirant, it is of utmost importance to understand the RTI Act since, obviously, governance and accountability are key areas of the UPSC syllabus. Conveyance of the RTI framework would add to the understanding of democratic processes and the challenges ahead in ensuring transparency, both facilitating the Prelims as well as the Mains exams.
Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005. It has been targeted as its effectiveness is seemingly getting undermined due to systemic ills like delayed appointments, political biases, and legislation in general. Of utmost importance for UPSC aspirants as questions on the subject keep popping up, with particular reference to issues of transparency, governance, and accountability-in the words of the UPSC question put forth in 2018: “RTI and accountability”.
The journey toward transparency and accountability, through the evolution of the Right to Information in India, started at the grassroots level and eventually reached its result in the enactment of the RTI Act in 2005.
The Emergency Period (1975-1977) was one of the most significant civil liberties in India, which led to the transparency movement. In many ways, this era reminded and warned of the dangers of opaque governance and sowed seeds to be grown further into the future when transparency initiatives would take root. Advocates for citizens’ rights to information to restrain state actions abound.
The Right to Information was recognized by the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain in 1975 as a constituent of the fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). The opinion in that case impressed the point that in a government, transparency should be the rule of thumb, laying down a legal platform for future advocacy.
A grassroots movement in the year 1990, in Rajasthan, India, by MKSS, demanding access to the records of local governments, brought out public works corruption through public hearings. Information turned out to be a potent cure for the problem of corruption, and this case became a landmark for advocates of RTI throughout the nation.
Between 1997 and 2001, Indian states, including Tamil Nadu, Goa, and Delhi, enacted their respective RTI acts. The state initiatives, therefore, indicate important steps in the progress of national legislation, providing valuable insights into the implementation of RTI in practice and pointing to rising public demand for transparency throughout the country.
The Freedom of Information Act of 2002 was enacted but never came into force because its provisions and the exemptions under it were not strong enough. Its failure produced the need for a more stringent RTI law that was citizen-friendly. NGOs used its weaknesses to push for a nationwide comprehensive RTI legislation.
The RTI Act was enacted in 2005 with the mandate on government authorities to respond in time to citizen information requests and to establish the Information Commissions. It automatically covered all levels of government and, importantly, included private bodies funded by the government. It was one of the world’s most progressive laws on transparency, thus being a huge step toward accountability.
The RTI Act was initially doing well with a spate of applications exposing corruption and demanding accountability. The Adarsh Housing Society scam and many more were classics. However, along came the backlogs in Information Commissions and bureaucratic resistance as well, which became obstacles in its path.
Between 2011 and 2019, there were judgments by the Supreme Court that added further strength to the framework of RTI while including political parties as public authorities, but resistance to its implementation and threats by activists to RTI such as Shehla Masood’s assassination still posed a threat to those seeking information.
The Amending Ordinance of 2019 has changed the terms and salaries of Information Commissioners, which could undermine their independence. It allowed the central government to dictate the terms and salaries of the information commissioners, thus possibly undermining the independence from influence and how effectively it might enforce the RTI Act.
For instance, the 2023 amendment in Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act exempted all personal information from RTI disclosure. Removal of exceptions created previously has only further restricted access to information, thus complicating efforts toward achieving greater transparency and accountability.
Hence, delays in information delivery, misuse of exemptions, underfunded Information Commissions, and threats to activists impede the effective workings of the RTI Act. Political interference and lack of serious penalties for non-compliance further embolden the tendencies against transparency and accountability in governance.
Many information commissions are understaffed or non-functional and thus have massive backlogs. Reports indicate that several state commissions are still inoperative, and there is an overwhelming number of pending appeals and complaints in the Central Information Commission due to significant vacancies there.
Recent amendments like the 2019 RTI Amendment and the even more recently enacted 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act have in turn diluted the powers of the RTI Act, and in turn for the past year or so, many information requests have been denied on the grounds of personal privacy and reduced transparency.
Information commissions hardly ever penalise officials who violate the RTI Act and the official knows this and therefore do not fear the RTI Act. This, in turn, creates a culture of impunity; there is no fear of effecting compliance, which means that applications are left unattended and responses get delayed, which just increases the ineffectiveness of the RTI Act.
The opponents also argue that the appointments within the information commissions are imbalanced, wherein most of the appointments are founded on political contact. Such appointment skews the commissions from objectively scrutinizing information requests-whether of political sensitivity or otherwise.
RTI activists face threats and violence, severely hampering the Act’s effectiveness. Despite the Whistleblowers Protection Act, the absence of rules leaves activists vulnerable, discouraging citizens from filing RTI requests on sensitive issues.
Public bodies are increasingly using the exemption clauses to evade nihilation of information. Extension of the personal information exemptions and application of the national security or commercial confidence clauses are diminishing transparency.
Digitalization, in one sense, has made access more possible, but has also created barriers. Poorly maintained websites by the government and a digital divide that keeps people out who do not have internet access prevent citizens from accessing information which defeats the purpose of the RTI Act’s aim for universal access to information.
Effectiveness of RTI: Timely responses; enough funds for Information Commissions; protection to whistleblowers; abolition/reduction of exemptions; digital access; and information dissemination to citizens regarding rights under the Act.
The political interference can be brought down through a transparent and time-bound process of appointing Information Commissioners. So, under-staffed commissions require an independent selection committee and timely filling of vacancies.
The gap can be reduced by integrating AI with RTI kiosks and mobile services in order to improve digital infrastructure. It improves access, reduces processing time, and makes it an open system for the RTI application process.
Amending the RTI Act to incorporate mandatory penalties upon non-compliance would raise the deterrent against violations. Accountability for officials at the personal level and an enforcement wing not buried within the bureaucracy could promote an effective culture of transparency within public authorities.
The activists will be safe once the Whistleblower Protection Act starts functioning and speedy response systems in response to the threat issues of the RTI users are initiated. Special investigation units and exemplary punishments for the offenders will deal with the safety issues.
It would reduce the individual RTI applications if the proactive disclosure requirements are enhanced and the ‘Open by Default’ policy is implemented. Penalties for non-compliance will evoke a culture of openness in governance.
Mandatory training programs for Public Information Officers and RTI literacy initiatives can help streamline responses in RTI and empower the citizenry. These efforts will improve the quality of information disclosed and enlarge people’s awareness.
Limiting the arbitrary use will be through revising exemption clauses to avoid their abuse and introducing a mandatory ‘harm test’ applicable before exemptions may be invoked. Public interest override guidelines should be spelled out clearly to become transparent.
The linking of RTI compliance with the performance evaluation of the government will spur the latter to be more transparent. Analytical inferences from the use of RTI will lead to reforms in systemic governance and improved delivery of public services.
| Political: Political interference undermines the RTI Act through amendments and politically influenced appointments. Increased exemptions allow authorities to withhold information, weakening accountability. Ensuring transparency in commissioner appointments and reducing political control are essential to maintaining the Act’s integrity and independence. Economic: The RTI Act uncovers corruption and prevents economic losses by ensuring transparency in governance. However, underfunded commissions and staff shortages cause delays, reducing effectiveness. Bridging financial gaps and improving infrastructure can enhance the timely resolution of information requests and ensure public accountability. Social: The Act empowers citizens but is hindered by threats and violence faced by RTI activists. The digital divide excludes marginalized communities from accessing information. Promoting public awareness, protecting activists, and expanding rural access to RTI services are crucial for inclusive transparency. Technological: Online RTI filing improves access but exposes infrastructure gaps, especially in rural areas. Enhancing digital literacy and expanding internet access are necessary to bridge the divide. Training officials and citizens on digital platforms will further streamline RTI processes and increase effectiveness. Environmental: The RTI Act helps citizens monitor environmental compliance, exposing violations and improving accountability. It enables access to information on pollution control and environmental policies. Proactively seeking such information promotes sustainable development and ensures better enforcement of environmental regulations and practices. Legal: Amendments in 2019 and 2023 weakened the RTI Act by limiting its autonomy. Weak penalties foster non-compliance among officials. Strengthening the Act through stricter penalties, safeguarding whistleblowers, and clarifying exemptions will enhance accountability and ensure the legal integrity of the Act. |
The challenges to the RTI Act assume a fundamental importance in preserving transparency and accountability in India. So, what is needed here is urgent reform at all levels and a collective commitment towards establishing a right to information that indeed remains an effective tool in the cause of citizen empowerment and good governance.
| UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQs) Mains Q. For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous.” Discuss in the light of the experiences in the recent past. (UPSC Mains 2015, GS Paper II) Q. Discuss the evolution of Right to Information (RTI) in India, focusing on key legislative and judicial milestones such as the ‘State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain (1975)’ judgment and the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. How do these developments shape the future of transparency and accountability in governance? |
Higher education system in India is at a crossroads, facing a paradox of increased access…
Supreme Court Upholds the Validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Act The Supreme Court reversed…
The Jal Jeevan Mission is a flagship program of the Government of India. The mission…
Indian financial regulators are increasingly being put on the hot seat and hence have to…
G20’s Disaster Risk Reduction Working Group (DRRWG) Meeting in Brazil The G20 ministers who participated…
India has indeed scaled to new heights in terms of renewable energy. One such recent…