Times of India: Pune: Sunday, February
1, 2026.
The Economic Survey 2025–26's call for a "re-examination" of the Right to Information (RTI) Act—including the possibility of a ministerial veto and exemptions for internal deliberations, drafts, and confidential reports—has drawn sharp criticism from transparency activists and opposition leaders. Critics argue there is no evidence to suggest that the existing law hampers governance.
"The RTI
Act, 2005, is not just another law; it is a democratic safeguard that enables
citizens to scrutinise power," Pune-based RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar told
TOI. He called the proposal a "direct assault on the core of the RTI
Act".
Kumbhar said file notings and internal debates form a crucial chain of accountability, and shielding them would only promote opacity and corruption.
The Economic Survey argued that the RTI was "never intended as a tool for idle curiosity, nor as a mechanism to micro-manage the govt from the outside".
It warned that excessive transparency discourages candour among officials, pushing them towards cautious language and fewer bold ideas, thereby weakening effective governance. To support its case, the Survey cited transparency practices in Sweden, the US, and the UK, while maintaining that the proposal was "not an argument for secrecy by default".
Kumbhar recalled that a similar attempt was made in 2006, less than a year after the RTI Act came into force, when the Centre sought to exclude file notings, citing pressure on decision-making. "That proposal was rejected after widespread opposition from citizens, journalists, RTI activists, and civil society. Following Anna Hazare's hunger strike, the govt was forced to withdraw it. What was rejected then is now being brought back in a more subtle but more dangerous form," he said. He also dismissed international comparisons.
Jayaram Venkatesan, convenor of Aappor Iyakkam, an anti-corruption movement based in Tamil Nadu, said transparency must be seen as a facilitator rather than an obstacle. "Transparency should be viewed as a catalyst for informed decision-making. In a functioning democracy, citizens must have the right to know about the govt's deliberative processes, as this allows them to assess whether policies truly serve the public interest," he told TOI.
"To label such transparency a ‘hindrance' to economic growth is misguided and akin to claiming that the Constitution itself is a barrier to economic progress. On the contrary, transparency fosters sustainable, pro-people growth by eliminating corruption and neutralising vested interests," he added.
New Delhi–based RTI activist and transparency campaigner Anjali Bharadwaj said there was no justification for amending the law. "It is ironic that the Economic Survey acknowledges the RTI as one of the most empowering laws, yet lists alleged problems without providing any evidence to justify its re-examination. Govts have tried this before, but in the absence of evidence, such amendments were rejected," she said.
Bharadwaj stated that the law contains robust exemptions under Sections 8 and 9, which are frequently invoked by public authorities to deny information. "Multiple studies show that the Act functions effectively. The RTI Act is considered one of the most progressive information-access laws globally, and what is needed is a stronger proactive disclosure regime," she said.
Former Chief Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said there was no evidence that RTI constrained governance. "The Act, coupled with the amendment to Section 8(1)(j), which was inserted through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, will become very weak. Citizens are the best vigilance monitors through RTI. This signals that citizens are no longer seen as the rulers of the nation," he said.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge criticised the proposal in a post on X, alleging that the Modi govt has systematically weakened the RTI through amendments affecting information commissioners, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, and prolonged vacancies in the Central Information Commission. "After killing MGNREGA, is it RTI's turn?" he asked.
The Economic Survey 2025–26's call for a "re-examination" of the Right to Information (RTI) Act—including the possibility of a ministerial veto and exemptions for internal deliberations, drafts, and confidential reports—has drawn sharp criticism from transparency activists and opposition leaders. Critics argue there is no evidence to suggest that the existing law hampers governance.
Kumbhar said file notings and internal debates form a crucial chain of accountability, and shielding them would only promote opacity and corruption.
The Economic Survey argued that the RTI was "never intended as a tool for idle curiosity, nor as a mechanism to micro-manage the govt from the outside".
It warned that excessive transparency discourages candour among officials, pushing them towards cautious language and fewer bold ideas, thereby weakening effective governance. To support its case, the Survey cited transparency practices in Sweden, the US, and the UK, while maintaining that the proposal was "not an argument for secrecy by default".
Kumbhar recalled that a similar attempt was made in 2006, less than a year after the RTI Act came into force, when the Centre sought to exclude file notings, citing pressure on decision-making. "That proposal was rejected after widespread opposition from citizens, journalists, RTI activists, and civil society. Following Anna Hazare's hunger strike, the govt was forced to withdraw it. What was rejected then is now being brought back in a more subtle but more dangerous form," he said. He also dismissed international comparisons.
Jayaram Venkatesan, convenor of Aappor Iyakkam, an anti-corruption movement based in Tamil Nadu, said transparency must be seen as a facilitator rather than an obstacle. "Transparency should be viewed as a catalyst for informed decision-making. In a functioning democracy, citizens must have the right to know about the govt's deliberative processes, as this allows them to assess whether policies truly serve the public interest," he told TOI.
"To label such transparency a ‘hindrance' to economic growth is misguided and akin to claiming that the Constitution itself is a barrier to economic progress. On the contrary, transparency fosters sustainable, pro-people growth by eliminating corruption and neutralising vested interests," he added.
New Delhi–based RTI activist and transparency campaigner Anjali Bharadwaj said there was no justification for amending the law. "It is ironic that the Economic Survey acknowledges the RTI as one of the most empowering laws, yet lists alleged problems without providing any evidence to justify its re-examination. Govts have tried this before, but in the absence of evidence, such amendments were rejected," she said.
Bharadwaj stated that the law contains robust exemptions under Sections 8 and 9, which are frequently invoked by public authorities to deny information. "Multiple studies show that the Act functions effectively. The RTI Act is considered one of the most progressive information-access laws globally, and what is needed is a stronger proactive disclosure regime," she said.
Former Chief Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said there was no evidence that RTI constrained governance. "The Act, coupled with the amendment to Section 8(1)(j), which was inserted through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, will become very weak. Citizens are the best vigilance monitors through RTI. This signals that citizens are no longer seen as the rulers of the nation," he said.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge criticised the proposal in a post on X, alleging that the Modi govt has systematically weakened the RTI through amendments affecting information commissioners, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, and prolonged vacancies in the Central Information Commission. "After killing MGNREGA, is it RTI's turn?" he asked.
.JPG)
.JPG)
