BW Legal World: Article: Tuesday, 24 February 2026.
The Central Information Commission rules in January that advocates cannot file RTI applications for the cases they are handling
Last month, I had to tell
a client something I never imagined I'd have to say in my decades of practice:
"I can't file that RTI application for you."
Not because the information was classified. Not because it would harm national security. But because I'm a lawyer, apparently, that now disqualifies me from seeking information on behalf of clients.
The Central Information Commission ruled in January that advocates cannot file RTI applications for the cases they're handling. The decision relies on a Madras High Court precedent that's now spreading across the country like wildfire. Information officers everywhere are citing it. State commissions are following it. And just like that, a law that says "any citizen" can seek information now means "any citizen, except your lawyer."
My client was a widow from a small town in Bihar. Her husband died in police custody. The post-mortem report kept changing. She couldn't read or write. She'd saved money for months to hire me. And I had to explain that while I could argue her case in court, I couldn't file a simple RTI application to get the documents we needed.
She looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language. "But sir, you're my lawyer. How can they say you can't ask for my papers?"
Good question. I'm still looking for a good answer.
The Opposition's Selective Outrage
For years now, every opposition leader with a microphone has blamed the Modi government for "destroying" the RTI Act. The 2019 amendments became their favorite political football. Rahul Gandhi tweets about it. Parliamentary sessions feature dramatic speeches about transparency under threat.
But here's what's funny in a dark, ironic way. While they were busy organizing press conferences about government amendments that at least went through Parliament, got debated, got voted on, something far more damaging happened through judicial interpretation. And the opposition?
Because you can't organize a dharna against a High Court judgment. You can't make it a Modi- versus-transparency issue when it's courts adding restrictions. So they stay quiet, and the real damage to RTI happens in plain sight while everyone's looking elsewhere.
A tribal community in Chhattisgarh approached their lawyer about illegal mining on their land. The lawyer tried to get environmental clearances through RTI. Rejected. An SC/ST entrepreneur in Maharashtra, blacklisted after refusing to pay bribes, needed tender documents. His advocate filed RTI. Rejected.
Where's the press conference about that?
What Actually Happened
The RTI Act's language is crystal clear: "Any person who desires to obtain information under this Act shall make a request in writing."
Not "certain persons." Not "persons who meet our approval." Just "any person."
When Parliament wanted exemptions, they wrote them down. Section 24 lists exactly which agencies are exempt 19 of them, named specifically. Section 8 details exactly what information can be denied ten categories, defined clearly.
Parliament knows how to write restrictions. They're not shy about it. They didn't write this one about advocates.
But the Madras High Court found it anyway, buried somewhere between the lines. The reasoning? RTI shouldn't become "a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practice."
Now that interpretation is law, applied by information commissions from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. And here's the beautiful irony: we've created a system where being honest about helping your client disqualifies you, but filing the same RTI without mentioning you're a lawyer presumably works fine.
So we're teaching advocates: transparency about seeking transparency is a mistake.
Let Me Tell You Who This Actually Hurts
It's not me. I have resources. I can navigate systems. I can tell my literate clients to file RTI themselves and I'll draft the application.
But what about the advocate running a small practice in Begusarai or Barabanki? The one who mostly does legal aid work? Whose clients are daily wage workers, small farmers, people who've never filled out a government form in their lives?
That advocate just lost one of the few tools that actually worked. Because let's be honest about our legal system discovery procedures don't work. Order XI CPC applications get dismissed. Section 91 CrPC summons get ignored. Courts take months to get basic documents from government departments.
RTI worked. Thirty days, by law. Information officers had to respond. There was accountability.
And now? We're telling the most vulnerable litigants: "Your lawyer can't use the one mechanism that actually delivers results. You'll have to do it yourself. Good luck figuring out what information you need and how to ask for it."
The Constitutional Questions Nobody's Asking
I studied constitutional law. I've argued Article 14 cases. And I cannot, for the life of me, find the constitutional logic here. Same information. Same public authority. Same request. But if I file it as a citizen with "general interest," it's fine. If I file it as an advocate helping a client, it's impermissible.
What's the reasonable classification? What's the intelligible differentia? Where's the nexus to the object sought to be achieved?
Article 14 says equality before law. The Supreme Court has said more times than I can count that arbitrariness violates this guarantee.
This is arbitrariness on steroids.
Then there's Article 21. Access to justice is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court said so in Anita Kushwaha. But access to justice means effective legal representation. And effective representation in 2026 requires access to information.
We're essentially creating a new right: the right to a lawyer who can't access the information needed to effectively represent you.
I'm sure the framers of the Constitution would be thrilled.
The Misuse Argument Doesn't Hold
Every time anyone questions an irrational restriction, someone waves the misuse flag. "But advocates will misuse RTI!"
Will they? Some might. Just like some citizens misuse it. Some journalists misuse it. Some NGOs misuse it. I've seen RTI applications asking why elephants don't wear clothes and requesting romantic advice from the Prime Minister's Office.
Did we ban citizens? Did we ban journalists? No. Because the RTI Act already has provisions for dealing with misuse.
Various sections in the act, like Section 8(1), Section,6 (2), section 7 (9), lets information commissions reject frivolous applications and impose costs. Section 8 protects legitimately sensitive information national security, commercial confidence, personal privacy, ongoing investigations.
The safeguards exist. We're just choosing to ignore them in favor of a blanket professional ban that solves nothing and creates new problems.
Because here's what's actually going to happen: advocates will keep filing RTI applications. They'll just stop mentioning they're advocates. They'll file in their personal capacity. They'll file through their clerks. They'll find workarounds.
We haven't prevented misuse. We've just made the system more dishonest.
What Needs to Happen
The Supreme Court needs to look at this. Not five years from now. Not after it becomes so entrenched that nobody remembers "any person" used to actually mean any person. Now.
Because right now, this interpretation is spreading. Every information officer in every state is learning that "lawyer for client" means automatic rejection. It's becoming standard practice. And once something becomes standard practice in our system, changing it requires an act of divine intervention.
The questions are straightforward: Does "any person" in Section 6(1) permit categorical exclusions based on profession? Can courts add restrictions that Parliament didn't write? Does this violate Articles 14, 19, and 21?
These aren't radical questions. They're basic statutory interpretation and constitutional law. The Supreme Court answers these kinds of questions regularly. This one just happens to affect millions of litigants and thousands of advocates.
The Bigger Pattern
Here's what bothers me most. The RTI Act has been under attack from multiple directions. The 2019 amendments. The misuse of Section 8 exemptions. The years-long delays in appeals. The vacancy crisis in information commissions.
Each attack gets different levels of attention based on who's doing it. Government amendments? Front-page news. Opposition outrage. Prime-time debates.
Judicial interpretations that may have even bigger impact? Page 17, if we're lucky.
I'm not saying the 2019 amendments were perfect. I'm saying the asymmetry in scrutiny is glaring. And dangerous.
Because if we only pay attention to restrictions we can blame on the government, we miss the ones that slip through quietly. The ones that transform "any citizen" into "certain citizens" without anyone noticing. The ones that unintentionally devastate access to justice while claiming to prevent misuse.
A Personal Note
I've spent thirty years in court, both as an advocate and a journalist, and I’ve seen government officials lie about the existence of documents. I've watched files disappear. I've heard "the record is not available" more times than I can count.
RTI changed the game. Suddenly, there was a timeline. There was accountability. There were penalties for noncompliance.
I've used RTI to expose land grab scams. To get medical records in custodial death cases. To obtain tender documents proving corruption. To retrieve files mysteriously "lost" when they became inconvenient.
Every single time, it helped my client. Every single time, it advanced justice. Every single time, it made the system slightly more honest.
And now I'm supposed to accept that this was somehow improper? Was seeking information to help my client "misuse" a transparency law?
I don't accept that. I can't accept that.
The Bottom Line
The opposition can keep blaming the government for RTI's problems. That's politics. That's their job.
But the rest of us lawyers, activists, journalists, citizens who actually care about transparency rather than just scoring political points need to wake up to what's happening.
Yes, the 2019 amendments weakened RTI. They did. But at least we could see them coming. We could debate them. We could vote against the government if we disagreed.
This interpretation? It appeared like a ghost. No debate. No vote. No public discourse. Just courts reading restrictions into a statute that doesn't contain them, and commissions applying those restrictions nationwide
And the truly tragic part? The people this hurts most are exactly those who need RTI most. The poor. The illiterate. The marginalized. The ones who can't navigate government systems on their own. The ones who need their advocates to fight for them.
We've just tied one hand behind their advocates' backs.
Right now, somewhere in India, there's an advocate probably young, probably idealistic, probably handling more legal aid cases than paid ones trying to explain to a client why she can't file RTI for information they desperately need.
That advocate shouldn't have to make that explanation. That client shouldn't have to hear it. The RTI Act says "any citizen." It should mean any citizen.
If we're serious about transparency, access to justice, and the rule of law, we need the Supreme Court to make that clear.
Because right now, the law is becoming whatever courts say it is, regardless of what Parliament actually wrote.
And that should worry all of us far more than any government amendment ever could.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
(Dr. Ajay Kummar (Guest Author) :Dr. Ajay Kummar Pandey is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India with over 30 years of experience and Founder & Managing Partner of 4C Supreme Law International. He is also a President of the Supreme Court Life Member Bar Association.)
The Central Information Commission rules in January that advocates cannot file RTI applications for the cases they are handling
Not because the information was classified. Not because it would harm national security. But because I'm a lawyer, apparently, that now disqualifies me from seeking information on behalf of clients.
The Central Information Commission ruled in January that advocates cannot file RTI applications for the cases they're handling. The decision relies on a Madras High Court precedent that's now spreading across the country like wildfire. Information officers everywhere are citing it. State commissions are following it. And just like that, a law that says "any citizen" can seek information now means "any citizen, except your lawyer."
My client was a widow from a small town in Bihar. Her husband died in police custody. The post-mortem report kept changing. She couldn't read or write. She'd saved money for months to hire me. And I had to explain that while I could argue her case in court, I couldn't file a simple RTI application to get the documents we needed.
She looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language. "But sir, you're my lawyer. How can they say you can't ask for my papers?"
Good question. I'm still looking for a good answer.
The Opposition's Selective Outrage
For years now, every opposition leader with a microphone has blamed the Modi government for "destroying" the RTI Act. The 2019 amendments became their favorite political football. Rahul Gandhi tweets about it. Parliamentary sessions feature dramatic speeches about transparency under threat.
But here's what's funny in a dark, ironic way. While they were busy organizing press conferences about government amendments that at least went through Parliament, got debated, got voted on, something far more damaging happened through judicial interpretation. And the opposition?
Because you can't organize a dharna against a High Court judgment. You can't make it a Modi- versus-transparency issue when it's courts adding restrictions. So they stay quiet, and the real damage to RTI happens in plain sight while everyone's looking elsewhere.
A tribal community in Chhattisgarh approached their lawyer about illegal mining on their land. The lawyer tried to get environmental clearances through RTI. Rejected. An SC/ST entrepreneur in Maharashtra, blacklisted after refusing to pay bribes, needed tender documents. His advocate filed RTI. Rejected.
Where's the press conference about that?
What Actually Happened
The RTI Act's language is crystal clear: "Any person who desires to obtain information under this Act shall make a request in writing."
Not "certain persons." Not "persons who meet our approval." Just "any person."
When Parliament wanted exemptions, they wrote them down. Section 24 lists exactly which agencies are exempt 19 of them, named specifically. Section 8 details exactly what information can be denied ten categories, defined clearly.
Parliament knows how to write restrictions. They're not shy about it. They didn't write this one about advocates.
But the Madras High Court found it anyway, buried somewhere between the lines. The reasoning? RTI shouldn't become "a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practice."
Now that interpretation is law, applied by information commissions from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. And here's the beautiful irony: we've created a system where being honest about helping your client disqualifies you, but filing the same RTI without mentioning you're a lawyer presumably works fine.
So we're teaching advocates: transparency about seeking transparency is a mistake.
Let Me Tell You Who This Actually Hurts
It's not me. I have resources. I can navigate systems. I can tell my literate clients to file RTI themselves and I'll draft the application.
But what about the advocate running a small practice in Begusarai or Barabanki? The one who mostly does legal aid work? Whose clients are daily wage workers, small farmers, people who've never filled out a government form in their lives?
That advocate just lost one of the few tools that actually worked. Because let's be honest about our legal system discovery procedures don't work. Order XI CPC applications get dismissed. Section 91 CrPC summons get ignored. Courts take months to get basic documents from government departments.
RTI worked. Thirty days, by law. Information officers had to respond. There was accountability.
And now? We're telling the most vulnerable litigants: "Your lawyer can't use the one mechanism that actually delivers results. You'll have to do it yourself. Good luck figuring out what information you need and how to ask for it."
The Constitutional Questions Nobody's Asking
I studied constitutional law. I've argued Article 14 cases. And I cannot, for the life of me, find the constitutional logic here. Same information. Same public authority. Same request. But if I file it as a citizen with "general interest," it's fine. If I file it as an advocate helping a client, it's impermissible.
What's the reasonable classification? What's the intelligible differentia? Where's the nexus to the object sought to be achieved?
Article 14 says equality before law. The Supreme Court has said more times than I can count that arbitrariness violates this guarantee.
This is arbitrariness on steroids.
Then there's Article 21. Access to justice is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court said so in Anita Kushwaha. But access to justice means effective legal representation. And effective representation in 2026 requires access to information.
We're essentially creating a new right: the right to a lawyer who can't access the information needed to effectively represent you.
I'm sure the framers of the Constitution would be thrilled.
The Misuse Argument Doesn't Hold
Every time anyone questions an irrational restriction, someone waves the misuse flag. "But advocates will misuse RTI!"
Will they? Some might. Just like some citizens misuse it. Some journalists misuse it. Some NGOs misuse it. I've seen RTI applications asking why elephants don't wear clothes and requesting romantic advice from the Prime Minister's Office.
Did we ban citizens? Did we ban journalists? No. Because the RTI Act already has provisions for dealing with misuse.
Various sections in the act, like Section 8(1), Section,6 (2), section 7 (9), lets information commissions reject frivolous applications and impose costs. Section 8 protects legitimately sensitive information national security, commercial confidence, personal privacy, ongoing investigations.
The safeguards exist. We're just choosing to ignore them in favor of a blanket professional ban that solves nothing and creates new problems.
Because here's what's actually going to happen: advocates will keep filing RTI applications. They'll just stop mentioning they're advocates. They'll file in their personal capacity. They'll file through their clerks. They'll find workarounds.
We haven't prevented misuse. We've just made the system more dishonest.
What Needs to Happen
The Supreme Court needs to look at this. Not five years from now. Not after it becomes so entrenched that nobody remembers "any person" used to actually mean any person. Now.
Because right now, this interpretation is spreading. Every information officer in every state is learning that "lawyer for client" means automatic rejection. It's becoming standard practice. And once something becomes standard practice in our system, changing it requires an act of divine intervention.
The questions are straightforward: Does "any person" in Section 6(1) permit categorical exclusions based on profession? Can courts add restrictions that Parliament didn't write? Does this violate Articles 14, 19, and 21?
These aren't radical questions. They're basic statutory interpretation and constitutional law. The Supreme Court answers these kinds of questions regularly. This one just happens to affect millions of litigants and thousands of advocates.
The Bigger Pattern
Here's what bothers me most. The RTI Act has been under attack from multiple directions. The 2019 amendments. The misuse of Section 8 exemptions. The years-long delays in appeals. The vacancy crisis in information commissions.
Each attack gets different levels of attention based on who's doing it. Government amendments? Front-page news. Opposition outrage. Prime-time debates.
Judicial interpretations that may have even bigger impact? Page 17, if we're lucky.
I'm not saying the 2019 amendments were perfect. I'm saying the asymmetry in scrutiny is glaring. And dangerous.
Because if we only pay attention to restrictions we can blame on the government, we miss the ones that slip through quietly. The ones that transform "any citizen" into "certain citizens" without anyone noticing. The ones that unintentionally devastate access to justice while claiming to prevent misuse.
A Personal Note
I've spent thirty years in court, both as an advocate and a journalist, and I’ve seen government officials lie about the existence of documents. I've watched files disappear. I've heard "the record is not available" more times than I can count.
RTI changed the game. Suddenly, there was a timeline. There was accountability. There were penalties for noncompliance.
I've used RTI to expose land grab scams. To get medical records in custodial death cases. To obtain tender documents proving corruption. To retrieve files mysteriously "lost" when they became inconvenient.
Every single time, it helped my client. Every single time, it advanced justice. Every single time, it made the system slightly more honest.
And now I'm supposed to accept that this was somehow improper? Was seeking information to help my client "misuse" a transparency law?
I don't accept that. I can't accept that.
The Bottom Line
The opposition can keep blaming the government for RTI's problems. That's politics. That's their job.
But the rest of us lawyers, activists, journalists, citizens who actually care about transparency rather than just scoring political points need to wake up to what's happening.
Yes, the 2019 amendments weakened RTI. They did. But at least we could see them coming. We could debate them. We could vote against the government if we disagreed.
This interpretation? It appeared like a ghost. No debate. No vote. No public discourse. Just courts reading restrictions into a statute that doesn't contain them, and commissions applying those restrictions nationwide
And the truly tragic part? The people this hurts most are exactly those who need RTI most. The poor. The illiterate. The marginalized. The ones who can't navigate government systems on their own. The ones who need their advocates to fight for them.
We've just tied one hand behind their advocates' backs.
Right now, somewhere in India, there's an advocate probably young, probably idealistic, probably handling more legal aid cases than paid ones trying to explain to a client why she can't file RTI for information they desperately need.
That advocate shouldn't have to make that explanation. That client shouldn't have to hear it. The RTI Act says "any citizen." It should mean any citizen.
If we're serious about transparency, access to justice, and the rule of law, we need the Supreme Court to make that clear.
Because right now, the law is becoming whatever courts say it is, regardless of what Parliament actually wrote.
And that should worry all of us far more than any government amendment ever could.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
(Dr. Ajay Kummar (Guest Author) :Dr. Ajay Kummar Pandey is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India with over 30 years of experience and Founder & Managing Partner of 4C Supreme Law International. He is also a President of the Supreme Court Life Member Bar Association.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
