Impact of Recent Amendments to the RTI Act Introduction 

• • The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is widely regarded as one of the most transformative pieces of legislation in India’s democratic governance. 
  • Designed to enhance transparency and ensure accountability, the RTI Act empowers citizens to demand information from public authorities, making governance more open and accessible. 

• However, a recent amendment through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, is raising concerns about the future of the RTI and its impact on the transparency framework. 

What is the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005?

• • The RTI Act was enacted to empower citizens by providing them the right to access information held by public authorities, promoting openness and accountability within the government.

• Key Features of the RTI Act:

• • Objective: To enhance transparency in government processes, allowing citizens to request and access information held by public authorities.
  • Coverage: Applies to all public authorities, including central and state government bodies, ministries, and organizations substantially funded by the government.
  • Access to Information: Citizens can request information in various forms, such as records, documents, reports, and data.
  • Exemptions: Some information is exempt from disclosure, particularly that which could jeopardize national security, violate confidentiality, or interfere with ongoing investigations.
  • Response Timeline: Authorities must provide the requested information within 30 days, with an extension of up to 45 days in certain situations.
  • Penal Provisions: Officials who deny or mislead information may face penalties, ensuring accountability.

The Importance of the RTI Act

• Strengthening Governance and Accountability: The RTI Act has played a pivotal role in strengthening governance and holding public officials accountable. Since its implementation, over 3 crore RTI applications have been filed. These applications have exposed several high-profile corruption scandals and irregularities across various sectors. 

• For example, social audits conducted under the RTI Act led to the discovery of significant irregularities in ration distribution systems in Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, where ghost beneficiaries were found siphoning off essential food supplies meant for the needy. 

• A notable example is the Vyapam Scam in Madhya Pradesh, where RTIs played a crucial role in exposing the large-scale corruption in medical admissions and recruitment processes.

• Empowering Citizens and Promoting Democratic Participation: RTI has empowered millions of citizens, allowing them to engage in governance and demand information that directly impacts their lives. Annually, over 13 lakh RTI applications are filed across India, giving citizens the power to request information on government activities, spending, and decisions. 

• In 2016, RTI applications exposed irregularities in government spending in several states, leading to public outcry and policy changes. This mechanism has been instrumental in ensuring equality in access to information, promoting public participation in government processes, and enhancing democratic accountability. 

• Social Justice and Welfare Delivery: One of the key strengths of RTI is its ability to empower marginalized and vulnerable communities by providing them access to information related to government welfare programs.

•  In Madhya Pradesh, activists used RTI to uncover ghost beneficiaries in the Public Distribution System (PDS), leading to the identification and removal of individuals fraudulently benefiting from government schemes intended for the poor. 

• Additionally, in Uttar Pradesh, RTI applications revealed that a significant number of individuals enrolled in the MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) were not receiving the wages due to them, prompting government action to correct payment systems. 

• Citizens now have the ability to demand explanations for delays in welfare schemes, like the MGNREGA and PMAY (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana) schemes, leading to improved service delivery.

• Judicial and Executive Oversight: RTI has brought transparency not only to the executive branch but also to the judiciary. A landmark case, Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), brought the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) under the RTI Act. The Supreme Court ruled that information related to the office of the CJI was subject to public scrutiny under RTI, thereby ensuring that judicial appointments, decisions, and administrative matters within the judiciary were no longer shrouded in secrecy. 

• Additionally, RTI has played a vital role in exposing inefficiencies in executive bodies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), where applicants have used the Act to access details about investigation reports and the progress of cases. This judicial transparency is a significant development for India’s democratic fabric.

• Environmental and Public Health: RTI has been instrumental in bringing critical environmental and public health issues to light. For example, RTI applications in Maharashtra led to the revelation of illegal sand mining activities, contributing to severe riverbed erosion and ecological damage. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens used RTI to track the utilization of relief funds, uncovering instances of misappropriation in Kerala and Uttar Pradesh.

•  The RTI Act also played a crucial role in the fight against air pollution in cities like Delhi, where citizens used the Act to request information about compliance with air quality standards and measures taken to combat pollution. 

Problems in RTI Framework 

• • Backlog & Vacancies: A substantial backlog of RTI appeals remains unresolved, leading to delays in citizens receiving information. According to the Satark Nagrik Sangathan (2023), over 3 lakh appeals are pending, significantly affecting the timely processing of RTI applications. This backlog hampers the core purpose of the RTI Act, delaying transparency in government operations and frustrating citizens who rely on this law for holding public officials accountable. 

• Dilution of Autonomy: The RTI (Amendment) Act 2019 has empowered the Centre to decide the tenure and salaries of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs), diluting their autonomy and raising concerns about their impartiality. This centralization of power can make these bodies susceptible to political influence, compromising their ability to function independently. It weakens the autonomy of these commissions, potentially leading to biased decisions that may not serve the interests of citizens seeking transparency.

• • Opaque Governance: The definition of “personal information” under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) has led to an increase in withholding critical information, including officers’ transfers, disciplinary records, and assets, under the pretext of privacy. For example, during the Maharashtra corruption scandal involving state officials, officers’ personal and official records were withheld, obstructing the investigation due to privacy concerns under this vague definition. This trend of withholding public information undermines the transparency goals of the RTI Act. 

• Threats to Activists: RTI activists continue to face severe threats, with over 100 RTI activists killed in recent years, according to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. The lack of a comprehensive whistleblower protection mechanism remains a key concern. 

• In Madhya Pradesh, activist Manoj Kumar Yadav, who had been using the RTI Act to expose corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS), was attacked by those he had exposed, highlighting the physical risks faced by those advocating for transparency.

• The absence of adequate protection for RTI activists deters individuals from coming forward to seek information, especially in cases involving corruption or human rights violations. This directly undermines the role of RTI as a tool for civic activism and governance transparency.

• Non-compliance: 45% of public authorities failed to comply with Section 4 disclosures, as per the Status of RTI Report (2022), which mandates proactive sharing of information by public bodies. 

• In Uttar Pradesh, despite legal requirements, Panchayat Samitis failed to release their financial reports or documents related to welfare schemes, causing public frustration and creating barriers to accountability.

• • • Non-compliance with Section 4 erodes the foundational principle of the RTI Act, where the public should not have to file an RTI request for basic information that should already be accessible. 

• Low Awareness: There is a lack of awareness about the RTI Act, particularly in rural, SC/ST, and women populations, according to the NSSO Report (2018). Many people do not know how to file RTIs or are unaware of their right to access government information.

• • • Example: In Bihar, a survey showed that only 18% of rural populations were aware of their RTI rights, limiting their ability to hold local authorities accountable.
    • This lack of awareness restricts the reach and effectiveness of the RTI Act, especially in marginalized communities, preventing them from leveraging the Act to secure benefits or demand accountability from local governments.

• Misuse and Vagueness: The vagueness of RTI applications, coupled with their misuse by vested interests, creates an administrative burden on government bodies. Ambiguous applications that are poorly framed or broad can result in delays and inefficiencies.

• • During the 2019 elections, multiple RTI applications were filed by political groups demanding records that were intentionally broad or politically motivated, clogging the system with excessive requests that delayed more legitimate inquiries.

Issues with Recent Amendment (Section 44(3) of DPDP Act, 2023)

• Removal of Public Interest Clause: Section 8(1)(j) earlier permitted the disclosure of personal information if it served a larger public interest. The DPDP Act removes this clause, imposing a blanket ban on such disclosures.
• Vague Definition of Personal Information: The DPDP Act’s broad definition allows authorities to withhold information that was earlier accessible, such as:
  • Educational qualifications
  • Disciplinary records
  • Property ownership
  • Minutes of public meetings
    This may hinder investigations, e.g., in fake caste certificate or qualification fraud cases.
• Judicial Concerns Remain Unaddressed: In Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court held that delays in Information Commission appointments undermine RTI implementation. Yet, no corrective action has been taken, and rollback of earlier amendments is still pending.
• Civil Society Opposition: Groups like NCPRI, Article 21 Trust, PUCL, and SFLC India have raised objections. Activists such as Anjali Bhardwaj and Nikhil Dey warn that the amendment will harm social audits and weaken public accountability in service delivery.
• Contrary to Puttaswamy Judgment: The Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India recognised the Right to Privacy as fundamental but also stated that privacy and transparency are complementary. The judgment did not call for amending the RTI Act.
• Erosion of Institutional Transparency: The amendment undermines the RTI Act’s core principle that no information denied to Parliament should be denied to citizens. The deletion weakens Section 8(1) entirely and reduces democratic oversight.
• Lack of Legislative Scrutiny: The amendment was passed through a side clause (Section 44(3)) without thorough parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

Way Forward

• Uphold Proportionality Doctrine: The Proportionality Doctrine as upheld in B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2020) should be applied to all administrative actions involving RTI requests. This principle ensures that actions taken are not excessive and are balanced with the needs of public transparency and the protection of privacy.

• Ensure Parliamentary Scrutiny: Future amendments to transparency laws, including any modifications to the RTI framework, must undergo thorough parliamentary scrutiny. They should be debated in detail and reviewed by relevant standing committees before implementation. This process can take inspiration from the USA’s FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) which has a well-defined judicial remedy for delays and an appeal process, ensuring a transparent and democratic process.

•  Strengthen Information Commissions: Vacancies in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) must be filled immediately. Additionally, their budget allocation should be increased to enable timely processing of cases. Security of tenure and functional autonomy should be guaranteed to ensure these commissions can operate without undue external influence. The PRS India report on the 2023-24 Budget revealed that the CIC received only ₹37 crore, which is insufficient for managing over 2 lakh pending cases. This highlights the need for increased financial and human resource support.

• • Balance Privacy and Transparency: The DPDP Act should include specific rules for defining “personal information” that ensure a balance between privacy and transparency. Public interest tests should be carried out through an independent authority to determine whether personal information can be disclosed. This approach is similar to the South African model where RTI is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, including private bodies if the rights of citizens are implicated.

•  Promote Proactive Disclosure: The government should strengthen Section 4 of the RTI Act, mandating suo motu disclosures by public authorities. This proactive approach will improve transparency and reduce the need for citizens to file requests for basic information. Countries like Mexico have autonomous Information Commissions and proactive information sharing as part of their constitutional framework, which can serve as a model for India.

• Repeal or Revise the RTI-DPDP Amendment: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which restricts the public interest override in the disclosure of personal information, should be repealed. The original “public interest” safeguard in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act must be restored to ensure that transparency is maintained in matters of significant public interest, even when personal information is involved. Additionally, the fixed tenure and pay parity for Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) must be re-established, aligning with the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) and Law Commission recommendations for independence and functional effectiveness.

•  Define ‘Personal Information’ Clearly: India should adopt internationally recognized standards for defining “personal information” based on the OECD Privacy Guidelines. The narrow definition should include public interest exceptions, ensuring that personal data, when needed for transparency or accountability, remains accessible. This could align with global best practices such as the European Union’s GDPR which clearly defines personal data and allows exceptions for public interest, ensuring data protection without stifling transparency.

• Reports and Recommendations: Various committees and reports have provided important recommendations for improving the RTI framework, such as:

• • • 2nd ARC Report: Strengthen proactive disclosure; protect whistleblowers.
    • Law Commission (255th Report): Ensure transparency in public appointments.
    • CIC Annual Reports: Urged filling of vacancies and increased awareness around RTI usage.

• Empower the CIC with Enforcement Powers: The CIC must be granted enforcement powers, as recommended by the 2nd ARC, to ensure compliance with RTI provisions. This would allow the commission to take more decisive actions against public authorities that refuse to disclose information.