Why in News?

October 12, 2025, marked 20 years since the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 came into full effect — a landmark law promoting transparency and accountability.

Introduction

• The Right to Information (RTI) Act came into full effect across India, marking a watershed moment in the country’s democratic journey.
• The law aimed to promote transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment, enabling people to seek information from public authorities and thereby hold them accountable.
• Two decades later, the RTI stands as both a symbol of democratic empowerment and a reminder of the continuing struggle between citizens’ right to know and the state’s instinct to control information.
• As India marks 20 years of RTI, reflections by Wajahat Habibullah, the country’s first Chief Information Commissioner (2005–2010), provide deep insights into the evolution, challenges, and future trajectory of the Act.

Genesis and Objectives of the RTI Act

• The RTI Act was the outcome of a long and persistent grassroots movement led by civil society groups such as the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan, which demanded transparency in government functioning, especially in the disbursal of wages and public works.
• Its enactment in 2005 was a recognition that information is power, and access to it is fundamental to participatory democracy. The Act sought to:
• Ensure transparency and accountability in government functioning.
• Empower citizens to scrutinize decisions and actions of public authorities.
• Promote public participation in governance and curb corruption.

Achievements and Successes

• According to Wajahat Habibullah, the RTI has indeed been successful in democratizing access to information across diverse social strata.
• Inclusivity: The law has empowered not only educated citizens but also women, slum dwellers, forest communities, and marginalized groups. Through RTI, many have accessed vital welfare benefits such as widow pensions, ration entitlements, and school admissions.
• Administrative Transparency: Every government department now maintains a public website with policy details, contact information, and public schemes, fulfilling the proactive disclosure provisions under Section 4 of the Act.
• Public Awareness: RTI has become a widely known citizen instrument, symbolizing participatory governance.
• Thus, the RTI has made transparency a part of administrative discourse and public expectation — a major achievement for any law.

Decline in Efficacy and Emerging Challenges

• Despite its early success, the efficacy of the RTI regime has declined over time. Habibullah points out several factors responsible for this downturn:

1. Institutional Weakness and Vacancies

• A large number of posts in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) remain vacant. The Supreme Court, in its January 7, 2025 order, sharply criticized this failure, noting that “what is the use of this institution if you do not have persons to perform duties under the law?”
• Vacancies have led to:
• Huge pendency of appeals and complaints.
• Delay in justice delivery, undermining citizens’ faith in the RTI mechanism.
• Erosion of autonomy, as governments retain control over appointments.
• Habibullah argues that this stems from a policy of weakening autonomous institutions, particularly those that ensure accountability.

2. The DPDP Act and Privacy Amendments

• The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, has amended the RTI Act by introducing new privacy restrictions.
• Earlier, the RTI Act (Section 8(1)(j)) already contained provisions to protect personal privacy, allowing denial of information if it had no relation to public interest.
• The new amendment, however, overrides the RTI and makes privacy an absolute right, curtailing the scope of disclosure.
• As Habibullah and other former commissioners like Shailesh Gandhi argue, this has effectively “killed the RTI”, since privacy is now often cited as a reason to deny information — even in matters of clear public interest.

3. Bureaucratic Resistance and Misuse of Discretion

• Many authorities now refuse or mislead applicants seeking information. RTI applications are sometimes viewed as “acts of indiscipline” when filed by government employees.
• This bureaucratic resistance has weakened the culture of transparency, turning the law from a tool of empowerment into a procedural formality.

4. Weak Enforcement and Lack of Support Mechanisms

The RTI Act is an information law, not an anti-corruption or grievance redressal mechanism. Its success depends on complementary institutions such as:

• A strong Whistleblower Protection Act, and
• Effective grievance redressal systems.
• Their absence has meant that even when RTI exposes corruption, there is no institutional follow-up or protection for whistleblowers.

Decline of Social Audits and Grassroots Oversight

• One of the most powerful provisions of the RTI Act is the right to inspect works and take samples — crucial for social auditing of government schemes.
  However, Habibullah notes that such grassroots accountability mechanisms have declined in recent years, with fewer cases reported in the media.
• While social audits continue under programs like MGNREGA, the overall culture of community inspection and verification under RTI has diminished due to administrative pushback and lack of awareness.

Reasons for Weakening of the RTI Framework

The weakening of the RTI can be attributed to a combination of institutional, political, and bureaucratic factors:

• Delayed and inadequate appointments to commissions.
• Legislative amendments (like DPDP Act) that curb disclosure.
• Administrative apathy and reluctance to part with information.
• Absence of complementary mechanisms for protection and redressal.
• Political discomfort with transparency in governance.
• Together, these have led to what many activists call a “systemic throttling” of the RTI.

The Way Forward:

• Habibullah emphasizes that the RTI must not be seen as a weapon against the State, but as an instrument for better governance. To rejuvenate the RTI regime, the following steps are crucial:
• Timely appointment of Information Commissioners and adequate staffing.
• Strengthening autonomy of information commissions and ensuring enforcement powers.
• Revisiting the DPDP amendment to restore balance between privacy and transparency.
• Integration with e-governance — ensuring all public data is proactively disclosed under Section 4.
• Public awareness and civic education to encourage responsible use of RTI.
• Protection for whistleblowers and linkages with anti-corruption frameworks.
• A renewed citizens’ movement — similar to the one that birthed the RTI — may be necessary to restore its original purpose.

Conclusion

• The Right to Information Act, 2005, remains one of independent India’s most empowering pieces of legislation — a cornerstone of democratic accountability.

CARE MCQ

Q3.  With reference to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, consider the following statements:

• The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
• The Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) are the final appellate authorities under the RTI Act.
• The 2023 amendment aligning the RTI Act with the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act strengthened the citizens’ access to personal information.
• The RTI Act includes provisions for inspection of government works and taking of samples to facilitate social audits.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1, 2 and 3 only
(b) 1, 2 and 4 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 2 and 4 only

Answer 3: B

Explanation

• Statement 1 – Correct: The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in governance.
• Statement 2 – Correct: The CIC and SICs serve as the final appellate authorities under the Act.
• Statement 3 – Incorrect: The DPDP amendment has, in fact, restricted access to personal information by making privacy an overriding right.
• Statement 4 – Correct: The RTI Act empowers citizens to inspect works and take samples, enabling social audits, especially in rural schemes.
• Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

UPSC PYQ

Q. ‘Right to Privacy’ is protected under which Article of the constitution of India? (2021)

• Article 15
• Article 19
• Article 21
• Article 29

Ans: (c)