21 Years of the RTI Act

Source: The Hindu

Introduction 

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has completed 21 years. Apart from giving citizens the right to seek information, a key feature of the Act is Section 4, which requires public authorities to voluntarily publish a range of information so that people do not have to file RTI requests for basic details. However, a data analysis of Central Information Commission (CIC) reports and the websites of 94 government departments show that this mandate of proactive disclosure is still widely ignored. Meanwhile, the number of RTI requests and pending cases continues to grow.

What are the Key Facts About the RTI Act, 2005? 

• The Act enables citizens to access information held by public authorities, with the aim of promoting openness, accountability and good governance. 
• The first RTI application under the Act is widely credited to Shahid Raza Burney in Pune. 
• The Act applies to public authorities at the Central, State and local levels. 
• Under Section 22, the Act prevails over any other law to the extent of inconsistency. 
• Under Section 8(2), even exempt information may be disclosed where the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests. 
• Under Section 8(1), citizens cannot obtain information that would harm India's sovereignty, integrity, security, or strategic, scientific or economic interests, affect relations with foreign States, or lead to incitement of an offence. 
• Originally, the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners had a fixed term of 5 years or until 65 years of age, with salaries on par with the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. 
• The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 gave the Central Government the power to fix their tenure, salaries, allowances and service conditions. 
• The Act has improved scrutiny of public spending, such as MGNREGA, PDS and local development works, and helped expose scams like the Adarsh Housing Society, 2G spectrum and Commonwealth Games cases.

What is Proactive Disclosure under Section 4? 

• Section 4(1)(b) requires every public authority to voluntarily publish 16 categories of information, ranging from the contact details of officials to budget and expenditure details, and to update them regularly. 
• The Department of Personnel and Training has issued guidelines for disclosing additional information under eight broad heads, including procurement, public-private partnerships and RTI applications received. 
• The Act requires public authorities to share as much information suo motu as possible, so that citizens need to use the RTI route only minimally. 
• To check compliance, the government has made third-party transparency audits mandatory, and the audit reports must be submitted to the CIC.

What did the Data Analysis Reveal? 

• Audit Submissions: According to the CIC's annual report for 2024–25, only 1,446 of the 2,303 registered public authorities (about 62.7%) submitted transparency audit reports. About 37% did not submit them at all. 
• Audit Grades: Of the authorities that submitted reports, 410 got Grade A, 253 Grade B, 302 Grade C, 215 Grade D and 266 Grade E. More than half scored Grade C or below, meaning 80% or less, while Grade E meant a score below 60%. 
• Improving Trend: Compliance has improved over the last five years, with submissions roughly doubling from 754 in 2020–21 to over 1,440 in 2024–25. 
• Reports on Websites: Though guidelines recommend uploading audit reports on department websites, only 33 of the 94 departments listed on the RTI portal had their 2024–25 reports available. In 43 departments no report was found, and the rest had older, incomplete or merely referenced reports. 
• Mandatory Disclosure: Only 56 of the 94 departments (about 62%) had disclosed information on most required categories, with data from 2025–26. The websites of 26 departments did not have the information covered under the Act, and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had no such information at all. 
• Rising Pendency: RTI requests and pending cases have grown steadily over the years. Of the roughly 23 lakh requests handled in 2024–25, about 5.1 lakh (around 22%) had been pending from the previous year.

What are the Key Challenges Facing the RTI Act? 

• Weak Proactive Disclosure: Non-compliance with Section 4 forces citizens to file applications even for basic information, adding to the burden on public authorities and Information Commissions. 
• Long Delays: In most Information Commissions, disposing of a matter takes more than a year. Estimates for some States are extreme, such as about 29 years in Telangana and 23 years in Tripura at the current rate of disposal. 
• Vacancies: Between 2023 and 2024, six Information Commissions became fully non-functional for some time because commissioners were not appointed, and several have functioned without a Chief Information Commissioner. 
• Dilution Through Amendments: The 2019 Amendment reduced the autonomy of Information Commissioners. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amended Section 8(1)(j) to exempt all personal information from disclosure, including information about public officials. 
• Wider Use of Exemptions: Departments often deny information citing national security and the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Organisations such as RAW, IB and CERT-In are exempt under the Second Schedule read with Section 24, except for information on corruption and human rights violations. 
• Threats to RTI Activists: Many activists have faced harassment, attacks and even murder, while the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 remains poorly implemented.

What Reforms are Needed? 

• Make proactive disclosure under Section 4 truly mandatory, require audit reports to be uploaded on department websites, and hold heads of public authorities accountable for poor audit grades. 
• Fill vacancies in Information Commissions through a transparent, time-bound process, and provide adequate staff, technology and disposal benchmarks for each commissioner. 
• Impose penalties on Public Information Officers under Section 20 for wrongful denial or delay, and ensure Information Commissions publish their annual reports on time under Section 25. 
• Integrate RTI portals with DigiLocker, enable real-time tracking of applications, and use AI-based tools to help citizens draft requests. 
• Fully implement the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 with anonymous complaints and emergency protection, set up fast-track courts for attacks on RTI users, and create district-level helplines and legal aid support. 
• Bring parliamentary oversight into appointments of Information Commissioners and restore their fixed tenure and service conditions.

Conclusion 

Twenty-one years after its enactment, the RTI Act remains one of the strongest tools of democratic accountability in India. But poor compliance with proactive disclosure, rising pendency, vacancies in Information Commissions, legislative dilution and threats to activists have weakened its impact. If public authorities faithfully followed Section 4, citizens would get basic information without filing requests, the burden on Information Commissions would ease, and the Act would come closer to its original promise of transparent and accountable governance.