DT Next: New Delhi: Thursday, 18 September 2025.
There is widespread perception that the government has not been quite comfortable with this institutional mechanism to increase transparency in government and administration.
There has been a growing
concern in the civil society that the Right to Information system has been
undermined over the years. There is widespread perception that the government
has not been quite comfortable with this institutional mechanism to increase
transparency in government and administration. This issue came to the fore recently
as the government has been dragging its feet with regard to appointing key
officials, including the Chief Information Commissioner. Civil society and
transparency activists interpret this reluctance regarding filling up vacancies
as an effort to restrict its functioning.
The Right to Information Act was originally enacted by the UPA government following years of campaigning and advocacy by civil society. The Act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, which is critical for enforcing accountability in governance. Many analysts have pointed out how the NDA government has been trying to weaken the Act through amendments and administrative tweaks. As a result, rejection of RTI applications on important issues has come to light. Though the percentage of rejections has been erratic and sometimes declined, activists contend that the Prime Minister’s Office and some key ministries, such as Finance, Home, and constitutional bodies such as the Comptroller Auditor General and higher courts, find ways not to part with information. Secondly, vacancies have contributed to the increase in backlogs of complaints and appeals, which were over 4 lakh in 2024. Though the Act has stipulated the time within which authorities must furnish the details sought, officials can find ways to circumvent it. When declined, the applicant will have to appeal against it, and it will get stuck at the State and Central commissions.
Instead of expanding the scope of RTI, the government has been trying to restrict it through ambiguous exemptions. Similarly, the Right to Information mechanism needs officials who are empowered and enjoy considerable autonomy. Though the government has done this with regard to the Election Commission of India, it has decided otherwise with regard to RTI commissioners.
Of late, the government and other authorities have been using data protection and privacy as reasons for justifying the increasing opaqueness in administration and restricting the citizens’ right to information. While data protection and privacy are valid concerns, everyone agrees that they need to be protected; it is wrong to misuse them to decline information that is of public interest. It is well-established norm that wherever high stakes are involved in terms of public interest and transparent governance, the law should facilitate disclosure. Blanket provisions are vulnerable to abuse and tend to go against the spirit of transparency and accountability. Legal and public policy experts have been arguing that it is wrong to view privacy and transparency as binary opposites and instead see it from a perspective where one complements the other, and evolved societies strive to manage the delicate balance between the two.
At another level, the stifling and gagging of RTI activists happens through violence by non-state players. Murder of RTI activists has been reported in the media, but what goes unreported is the everyday intimidation and threats RTI activists are subjected to. The RTI activists and whistleblowers need to be given due protection, as their work is important for the overall participatory democratic functioning.
A government that is committed to transparent governance and curbing corruption should, in the interest of democracy, heed the sane voices regarding the need to strengthen the RTI Act and staff it with an adequate number of empowered officials.
There is widespread perception that the government has not been quite comfortable with this institutional mechanism to increase transparency in government and administration.
The Right to Information Act was originally enacted by the UPA government following years of campaigning and advocacy by civil society. The Act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, which is critical for enforcing accountability in governance. Many analysts have pointed out how the NDA government has been trying to weaken the Act through amendments and administrative tweaks. As a result, rejection of RTI applications on important issues has come to light. Though the percentage of rejections has been erratic and sometimes declined, activists contend that the Prime Minister’s Office and some key ministries, such as Finance, Home, and constitutional bodies such as the Comptroller Auditor General and higher courts, find ways not to part with information. Secondly, vacancies have contributed to the increase in backlogs of complaints and appeals, which were over 4 lakh in 2024. Though the Act has stipulated the time within which authorities must furnish the details sought, officials can find ways to circumvent it. When declined, the applicant will have to appeal against it, and it will get stuck at the State and Central commissions.
Instead of expanding the scope of RTI, the government has been trying to restrict it through ambiguous exemptions. Similarly, the Right to Information mechanism needs officials who are empowered and enjoy considerable autonomy. Though the government has done this with regard to the Election Commission of India, it has decided otherwise with regard to RTI commissioners.
Of late, the government and other authorities have been using data protection and privacy as reasons for justifying the increasing opaqueness in administration and restricting the citizens’ right to information. While data protection and privacy are valid concerns, everyone agrees that they need to be protected; it is wrong to misuse them to decline information that is of public interest. It is well-established norm that wherever high stakes are involved in terms of public interest and transparent governance, the law should facilitate disclosure. Blanket provisions are vulnerable to abuse and tend to go against the spirit of transparency and accountability. Legal and public policy experts have been arguing that it is wrong to view privacy and transparency as binary opposites and instead see it from a perspective where one complements the other, and evolved societies strive to manage the delicate balance between the two.
At another level, the stifling and gagging of RTI activists happens through violence by non-state players. Murder of RTI activists has been reported in the media, but what goes unreported is the everyday intimidation and threats RTI activists are subjected to. The RTI activists and whistleblowers need to be given due protection, as their work is important for the overall participatory democratic functioning.
A government that is committed to transparent governance and curbing corruption should, in the interest of democracy, heed the sane voices regarding the need to strengthen the RTI Act and staff it with an adequate number of empowered officials.
.JPG)
.JPG)
