The Indian Express: Article: Wednesday, 4th
February 2026.
Introduced in 2005, the Act has seen several amendments in the past 20 yrs, which are alleged to have weakened it. Economic Survey’s latest proposed changes will be “murder” of the landmark law, says Congress
Twenty years after the
Right to Information Act was introduced, the Economic Survey 2025-26 has called
for its re-examination. Tabled in Parliament last week, the survey suggested
“adjustments” to exempt disclosures on deliberative process of policy-making
and possibly a ministerial veto with parliamentary oversight to guard against
disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.
The legislation, the survey said, carries risks of becoming an “end in itself”, with disclosures celebrated regardless of contribution to better governance, and said the Act was never intended “as a tool for idle curiosity,” nor as a mechanism to micromanage government from the outside.
Congress president Mallikarjuna Kharge called it a plan to “murder” the UPA-era law after its “systematic weakening” since 2014.
A look at the evolution of the Act, which was hailed as a transformative tool for democratic accountability when introduced in 2005:
The making of the RTI Act
The RTI Act in India emerged from grassroots struggles dating back to the 1970s. In 1997, in response to a demand for such legislation, the H D Deve Gowda-led United Front government set up a working group to prepare a Freedom of Information Bill. After extensive changes, this led to the passage of the Freedom of Information Act of 2002.
In 2004, the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government came to power. One of the crucial components of this government was the National Advisory Council (NAC), led by Sonia Gandhi, which made right to information one of its primary goals. Alongside civil society organisations, the NAC deliberated several revisions of the 2002 law, resulting in a more robust framework.
In 2005, the UPA government brought in the RTI Bill. During the debate in Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described its passage as “the dawn of a new era in our processes of governance… an era which will bring the common man’s concern to the heart of all processes of governance”.
The final RTI Act was passed with 150 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, and officially came into force on October 12, 2005, applying across all levels of government, including local bodies. “The information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”, the Act held.
Around 20 years later, roughly 40 to 60 lakh RTI applications are filed on an average annually, from Central offices to grassroots levels.
The changes since
In 2006, still under the UPA government, there were attempts to amend the RTI Act by removing “file notings (internal notes by government officials on files)”. While these changes could not materialise due to public protests, the UPA government continued to have internal reservations.
In 2011, on the sixth anniversary of the Act, PM Manmohan Singh expressed his concern that RTI queries with “no bearing on public interest” were being filed. A year later, he spoke of the Act’s “frivolous and vexatious” use.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, in its report submitted around this time, recommended exempting the armed forces from the RTI Act. By then, the UPA had already exempted the CBI from its purview. Then Law Minister M Veerappa Moily approved the exemption to the CBI despite the fact that as chairman of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, he had written a special chapter on RTI, terming it ‘Master Key to Good Governance’.
Early attempts to amend the Act, however, were thwarted not just by activists but also then Opposition parties, including the BJP.
In October 2015, PM Narendra Modi, who had taken over a year earlier as head of the NDA government, hailed the RTI Act at an annual conference of the Central Information Commission, urging citizens to not only access documents but also “ask questions and demand accountability from public authorities”. This right forms “the very foundation of democracy”, he said.
However, in 2019, the Modi government brought in amendments altering the terms, tenure, and emoluments of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs), which was seen as weakening the structure of the RTI.
The original Act placed the CICs and ICs on parity with equivalent ranks in the Election Commission of India meaning a fixed tenure of five years, with removal possible only under specific conditions. The 2019 amendment, however, removed equivalence with the EC, and gave the government control over the tenure, emoluments and terms of appointment of CIC and ICs.
In 2023, the NDA government brought in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), dealing with personal information. The RTI Act had held that personal information could be disclosed if larger public interest justified it, despite potential privacy invasion. However, the new Act exempted disclosure of information relating to “personal information” more broadly.
Civil rights organisations protested against this “dilution” of the RTI Act.
Why the worry
The Economic Survey’s remarks come at a time when the RTI Act is increasingly seen as under siege. The Act defines “information” expansively to include any material in any form – records, documents, emails, opinions, reports, data in electronic form, and even information held by private bodies accessible under other laws. Despite this broad scope, obtaining disclosures has grown difficult, as noted by various activists.
One example of how the Act remains unenforced is the CIC’s June 2013 order declaring six national political parties (Congress, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP, BSP) as “public authorities” under the Act. Neither the BJP nor the Congress has complied with this, failing to appoint Public Information Officers or respond to requests.
As per an October 2025 appraisal report of information commissions by Satark Nagrik Sangathan, till June 30 last year, 4.13 lakh appeals and complaints were pending before 29 information commissions.
What Economic Survey has said
The Economic Survey suggests exempting brainstorming notes, working papers, and draft comments until they form part of the final record of decision-making, protection of service records, transfers, and confidential staff reports. It also suggests exploring a “narrowly defined” ministerial veto to guard against disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.
The survey also draws parallels between the RTI Act and similar laws in the US, UK and Sweden, and argues that unlike the Indian Act, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memos, and financial regulations are exempt from disclosures internationally. If every draft or remark is disclosed, officials may “hold back”, leading to fewer “bold ideas”, the survey says. “Democracy best functions when officials can deliberate freely and are then held accountable… not for every half-formed thought expressed along the way.”
Transparency campaigner Anjali Bharadwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, has questioned this, saying issues flagged over impact on officials are not borne out by evidence, and that the Act already has a robust mechanism on exempting certain disclosures.
(Shyamlal Yadav is one of the pioneers of the effective use of RTI for investigative reporting. He is a member of the Investigative Team. His reporting on polluted rivers, foreign travel of public servants, MPs appointing relatives as assistants, fake journals, LIC’s lapsed policies, Honorary doctorates conferred to politicians and officials, Bank officials putting their own money into Jan Dhan accounts and more has made a huge impact. He is member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). He has been part of global investigations like Paradise Papers, Fincen Files, Pandora Papers, Uber Files and Hidden Treasures. After his investigation in March 2023 the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York returned 16 antiquities to India. Besides investigative work, he keeps writing on social and political issues.)
Introduced in 2005, the Act has seen several amendments in the past 20 yrs, which are alleged to have weakened it. Economic Survey’s latest proposed changes will be “murder” of the landmark law, says Congress
The legislation, the survey said, carries risks of becoming an “end in itself”, with disclosures celebrated regardless of contribution to better governance, and said the Act was never intended “as a tool for idle curiosity,” nor as a mechanism to micromanage government from the outside.
Congress president Mallikarjuna Kharge called it a plan to “murder” the UPA-era law after its “systematic weakening” since 2014.
A look at the evolution of the Act, which was hailed as a transformative tool for democratic accountability when introduced in 2005:
The making of the RTI Act
The RTI Act in India emerged from grassroots struggles dating back to the 1970s. In 1997, in response to a demand for such legislation, the H D Deve Gowda-led United Front government set up a working group to prepare a Freedom of Information Bill. After extensive changes, this led to the passage of the Freedom of Information Act of 2002.
In 2004, the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government came to power. One of the crucial components of this government was the National Advisory Council (NAC), led by Sonia Gandhi, which made right to information one of its primary goals. Alongside civil society organisations, the NAC deliberated several revisions of the 2002 law, resulting in a more robust framework.
In 2005, the UPA government brought in the RTI Bill. During the debate in Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described its passage as “the dawn of a new era in our processes of governance… an era which will bring the common man’s concern to the heart of all processes of governance”.
The final RTI Act was passed with 150 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, and officially came into force on October 12, 2005, applying across all levels of government, including local bodies. “The information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”, the Act held.
Around 20 years later, roughly 40 to 60 lakh RTI applications are filed on an average annually, from Central offices to grassroots levels.
The changes since
In 2006, still under the UPA government, there were attempts to amend the RTI Act by removing “file notings (internal notes by government officials on files)”. While these changes could not materialise due to public protests, the UPA government continued to have internal reservations.
In 2011, on the sixth anniversary of the Act, PM Manmohan Singh expressed his concern that RTI queries with “no bearing on public interest” were being filed. A year later, he spoke of the Act’s “frivolous and vexatious” use.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, in its report submitted around this time, recommended exempting the armed forces from the RTI Act. By then, the UPA had already exempted the CBI from its purview. Then Law Minister M Veerappa Moily approved the exemption to the CBI despite the fact that as chairman of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, he had written a special chapter on RTI, terming it ‘Master Key to Good Governance’.
Early attempts to amend the Act, however, were thwarted not just by activists but also then Opposition parties, including the BJP.
In October 2015, PM Narendra Modi, who had taken over a year earlier as head of the NDA government, hailed the RTI Act at an annual conference of the Central Information Commission, urging citizens to not only access documents but also “ask questions and demand accountability from public authorities”. This right forms “the very foundation of democracy”, he said.
However, in 2019, the Modi government brought in amendments altering the terms, tenure, and emoluments of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs), which was seen as weakening the structure of the RTI.
The original Act placed the CICs and ICs on parity with equivalent ranks in the Election Commission of India meaning a fixed tenure of five years, with removal possible only under specific conditions. The 2019 amendment, however, removed equivalence with the EC, and gave the government control over the tenure, emoluments and terms of appointment of CIC and ICs.
In 2023, the NDA government brought in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), dealing with personal information. The RTI Act had held that personal information could be disclosed if larger public interest justified it, despite potential privacy invasion. However, the new Act exempted disclosure of information relating to “personal information” more broadly.
Civil rights organisations protested against this “dilution” of the RTI Act.
Why the worry
The Economic Survey’s remarks come at a time when the RTI Act is increasingly seen as under siege. The Act defines “information” expansively to include any material in any form – records, documents, emails, opinions, reports, data in electronic form, and even information held by private bodies accessible under other laws. Despite this broad scope, obtaining disclosures has grown difficult, as noted by various activists.
One example of how the Act remains unenforced is the CIC’s June 2013 order declaring six national political parties (Congress, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP, BSP) as “public authorities” under the Act. Neither the BJP nor the Congress has complied with this, failing to appoint Public Information Officers or respond to requests.
As per an October 2025 appraisal report of information commissions by Satark Nagrik Sangathan, till June 30 last year, 4.13 lakh appeals and complaints were pending before 29 information commissions.
What Economic Survey has said
The Economic Survey suggests exempting brainstorming notes, working papers, and draft comments until they form part of the final record of decision-making, protection of service records, transfers, and confidential staff reports. It also suggests exploring a “narrowly defined” ministerial veto to guard against disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.
The survey also draws parallels between the RTI Act and similar laws in the US, UK and Sweden, and argues that unlike the Indian Act, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memos, and financial regulations are exempt from disclosures internationally. If every draft or remark is disclosed, officials may “hold back”, leading to fewer “bold ideas”, the survey says. “Democracy best functions when officials can deliberate freely and are then held accountable… not for every half-formed thought expressed along the way.”
Transparency campaigner Anjali Bharadwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, has questioned this, saying issues flagged over impact on officials are not borne out by evidence, and that the Act already has a robust mechanism on exempting certain disclosures.
(Shyamlal Yadav is one of the pioneers of the effective use of RTI for investigative reporting. He is a member of the Investigative Team. His reporting on polluted rivers, foreign travel of public servants, MPs appointing relatives as assistants, fake journals, LIC’s lapsed policies, Honorary doctorates conferred to politicians and officials, Bank officials putting their own money into Jan Dhan accounts and more has made a huge impact. He is member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). He has been part of global investigations like Paradise Papers, Fincen Files, Pandora Papers, Uber Files and Hidden Treasures. After his investigation in March 2023 the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York returned 16 antiquities to India. Besides investigative work, he keeps writing on social and political issues.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
