Does the RTI Act need re-examination?

• The Economic Survey 2025-26 made a strong case for re-examining the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

• The RTI Act is widely seen as one of India’s most powerful democratic reforms.

What is the RTI Act?

• The Constitution of India has enshrined the principles of democracy, by guaranteeing to its citizens certain Fundamental Rights. 

• Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by implication, guarantee to the citizens of India the right to know everything done by public functionaries. 

• To set out a practical regime for securing information by citizens from the public authorities and to promote transparency and accountability in the working of all public authorities, the Parliament enacted the Right to Information Act in 2005.

• The Act is comprehensive and covers disclosure of information by public authorities on matters of governance. 

• It is applicable to government at all levels — Union, state and local and also to the bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the government. 

• It covers legislative bodies, the judiciary, the executive and Constitutional bodies.

• The Act casts an obligation on public authorities for suo-motu disclosure/publication of information held by them. 

• It also requires the public authorities to supply information called for by any citizen and to permit him to inspect the documents and collect samples of various works. 

• It can be made in Hindi or English or in the official language of the area in which the application is made.

• The Act creates the machinery to ensure supply of information, which consists of Public Information Officers, Assistant Public Information Officers, Departmental Appellate Authorities, independent Central and State Information Commissions, etc.

• The Act requires information to be provided in a time bound manner. 

• A Public Information Officer is required to send information called for at the specified address within 30 days. 

• In case the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, it has to be provided within 48 hours. 

• The Act provides for imposition of a stringent penalty on the Public Information Officer, if the information is not provided within the prescribed period.

• Certain types of information pertaining to security of the country, scientific or economic interest of the country and information on trade secrets, etc are exempted from disclosure. 

• Certain security or intelligence organisations have been exempted from disclosing any information except that pertaining to allegation of corruption or violation of human rights. 

• Such organisations are required to designate Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities to deal with applications and appeals relating to information pertaining to corruption or violation of human rights.

Which other countries have legislation like RTI Act?

• The RTI Act is first and foremost an anti-corruption and accountability instrument, and its contribution to democratic governance is beyond dispute. 

• It empowered citizens to demand answers, lifted the veil of administrative secrecy, and gave ordinary people a tool to challenge corruption. 

• The Economic Survey said that like any powerful instrument, it carries risks. 

• Unless carefully balanced, RTI risks becoming an end in itself, with disclosure celebrated regardless of its contribution to better governance. That may undermine the very purpose it was meant to serve. 

• The idea of citizens’ right to know is not uniquely Indian. Sweden pioneered it with the world’s first Freedom of Information Law (FOIA) in 1766. The United States enacted its FOIA in 1966, and the United Kingdom followed in 2000. 

• Interestingly, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair later admitted he regretted introducing it, not because he opposed accountability, but because he felt governance itself suffered.

• The global experience suggests that transparency works best when paired with room for candid discussion.

• By global standards, India’s RTI Act is relatively expansive. In the United States, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memos, and financial regulation reports are exempt from disclosure. 

• Sweden protects fiscal and monetary policy, supervisory activities, and the economic interests of institutions under its secrecy provisions. 

• The United Kingdom exempts policy formulation where disclosure may harm the public interest, with ministers retaining veto powers even against orders of courts or commissions. 

• The World Bank similarly excludes deliberative information and administrative matters from its disclosure policy.

• India, in contrast, leaves far less space for such carve-outs. Draft notes, internal correspondence, and even personal records of officials often enter the public domain, sometimes even where the link to public interest is weak. 

Democracy functions best when officials can deliberate freely 

• Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom, or South Africa, which explicitly shield policy deliberations and draft documents, India has no general “deliberative process” exemption. 

• File notings, internal opinions, and draft notes fall squarely within the Act’s definition of information, with only Cabinet papers protected temporarily until a decision is made. 

• Combined with a strong public-interest override that can compel disclosure even of exempt material, this makes India’s RTI regime particularly broad.

• If every draft or remark might be disclosed, officials may hold back, resorting instead to cautious language and fewer bold ideas. The candour needed for effective governance is blunted. 

• This is not an argument for secrecy by default. Rather, democracy functions best when officials can deliberate freely and are then held accountable for the decisions they finally endorse, not for every half-formed thought expressed along the way.

Courts granted some exemptions

• Indian courts have already recognised these boundaries. 

• In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs CIC (2013), the Supreme Court exempted personal records of public servants from disclosure. 

• In R.K. Jain vs Union of India (2013), the court shielded Annual Confidential Reports. 

• More recently, in Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam (2017), it reaffirmed that employee data cannot be disclosed unless an overriding public interest is established. 

• These rulings affirm that privacy and confidentiality complement democracy rather than weaken it.

A case for re-examination

• The Economic Survey said that the RTI Act may need re-examination, not to dilute its spirit, but to align it with global best practices, incorporate evolving lessons, and keep it firmly anchored to its original intent. 

• A few possible adjustments may be worth exploring. One could be to exempt brainstorming notes, working papers, and draft comments until they form part of the final record of decision-making. 

• Another option could be to protect service records, transfers, and confidential staff reports from casual requests that add little value to the public interest. 

• A third might be to explore a narrowly defined ministerial veto, subject to parliamentary oversight, to guard against disclosures that could unduly constrain governance. 

• These are not prescriptions, but suggestions worth debating to ensure that the Act remains effective while also safeguarding the integrity of decision-making.

• The RTI Act was never intended as a tool for idle curiosity, nor as a mechanism to micromanage government from the outside. 

• Its purpose is far higher, and the law itself makes that clear. 

• The Act is best understood not as an end in itself, but as a means to strengthen democracy. 

• The wiser path is to keep it anchored to this original aim: enabling citizens to demand accountability for decisions that affect them, while also ensuring that space for candid deliberation and respect for privacy remain protected. 

• That balance between openness and candour is what will keep the RTI Act true to its purpose, it highlighted.