Emerging Challenges to RTI Act |ForumIAS

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2 -Governance

Introduction

Right to Information transforms subjects into citizens by opening the state to scrutiny. In October, as the RTI Act turned 20, Beawar—“RTI City”—marked 30 years of grassroots struggle with a memorial, museum, and RTI Mela. Yet the Digital Personal Data Protection Act’s amendments, alongside institutional and judicial trends, now risk hollowing RTI’s accountability power, making renewed safeguards and public vigilance essential. Emerging Challenges to RTI Act.

About Right to Information

Right to Information: The right to information is the right which ensures that the public become ‘citizens‘ rather than becoming‘subjects‘ in a democratic state, by having unhindered access to the flow of information regarding the functioning of the different arms of the government- legislature, executive and judiciary.

Recognition in International Law-
a. Recognised as Foundational Principle of UN: The United Nations (UN) recognised this right from the start, in 1946. The General Assembly resolved that Freedom of Information is a fundamental human right and the touchstone for all freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.
b. Recognition in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The right to Information was made a legally binding obligation after its affirmation in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

As a result, the right to access information has been firmly enshrined in international human rights law.

Recognition of Right to Information in India

Constitutional recognition: The Right to information has not been mentioned explicitly as a fundamental right in the constitution. SC has held Right to Information (RTI) to be a derivative of Article 19 (1) (a) which grants the freedom of speech and expression. RTI is also linked to the Indian constitution’s Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21).
Legislative Recognition: The RTI movement by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), and judicial emphasis on RTI, compelled the Parliament to enact the Right to Information Act in 2005.
RTI Act 2005 aims to provide a practical regime for citizens to obtain information from public authorities, as well as to promote transparency and accountability in the work of all public authorities.

Emerging challenges to RTI act in India

Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) Restrict Access
Blanket “personal information” shield: Section 44(3) of the DPDPA alters Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act so broadly that authorities can now refuse disclosure by labeling even information linked to public functions as “personal information.”
End of the citizen–Parliament parity proviso: By deleting the proviso that “information which cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen,” the amendment weakens the principle that ordinary citizens enjoy parity of access with their elected representatives.
State-centric discretion: Although Section 8(2) retains a public-interest override, the power to apply it rests with the public authority, which means citizens cannot require disclosure even when the public interest is compelling.
No names, no accountability: When names of officials, contractors, or decision-makers are withheld, citizens lose the ability to trace responsibility for actions or omissions, undermining efforts to expose corruption and maladministration.
Chilling effect of penalties: The DPDPA’s very high financial penalties—reportedly up to ₹250 crore—and its consent-first approach are likely to deter journalists, researchers, and RTI users from sharing or publishing information even when disclosure serves the public interest.
RTI Amendment, 2019- Affect Independence
Govt control over tenure & pay: The 2019 law lets the Central Government set the tenure, salary and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) by rules, instead of the earlier fixed safeguards.
Shorter, variable tenure in rules: The 2019 RTI Rules fixed a shorter 3-year term for many commissioners and gave the Centre broad interpretive powers, raising fears of influence and uncertainty.
Status downgraded in effect: By delinking salaries/tenure from constitutional benchmarks (like Election Commissioners), commissioners risk being seen as less autonomous.

Judicial interpretations narrowing RTI

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay that RTI should not burden the administration. It said indiscriminate RTI requests could slow governance. This decision discouraged information sharing and painted RTI users as troublemakers.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs CIC that personal information could be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court ignored the part of the law that required officials to prove why the information should be denied. This ruling became a precedent, making it easier to reject RTI requests.

Way forward

Re-affirmation of the right to information as a cardinal virtue of democracy: The SC through its verdicts, like in the case of electoral bonds, must re-affirm the right of information as a cardinal virtue of democracy.
Making the information available in local languages: The information associated with the RTI Act and its functioning must be made available in the local language, considering the diverse nature of our country.
Education about the right: Education about the right to know should be made mandatory at the school level in our new education policy to develop a sense of responsibility and vigilant citizenship in the forthcoming generation.
Making RTI applicable on Political parties: The parliament must bring the Political parties under the ambit of RTI to ensure proper functioning of the Great Indian democracy.
Code of Conduct: A code of conduct must be evolved for the Central and State Information Commissioners. It is imperative for the commissioners to keep a strict distance from government heads and officialdom.
The Supreme Court’s guidelines in DDA vs Skipper Construction (P) Ltd should be followed in letter and spirit. The SC ruled that (a) High Courts must resist the temptation to exercise their writ jurisdiction in order to correct errors made by the SICs/CICs; (b) If the High Court quashes a CIC/SIC order, it must categorically find that the order was without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous.
Institutionalise participatory law-making: Before any change affecting transparency, run time-bound public consultations with users, media bodies, academics, and civil society; publish the summary of feedback and a regulatory impact note.
Scale the Beawar model of public culture: Replicate the Beawar RTI Museum and annual RTI Mela through state/district cultural budgets to celebrate real cases, teach filing skills, and keep the transparency movement alive at the grassroots.