The Wire: New Delhi: Sunday, February
1, 2026.
The Economic Survey seeks to initiate debate on even more regressive measures that would further curtail the contours of the transparency regime.
The latest
Economic Survey revives a 20-year-old idea of amending the RTI Act to keep file
notings, records of internal deliberations, and draft papers out of the
citizenry’s reach. The United Progressive Alliance government had crafted an
amendment proposal along similar lines in 2006 but could not muster enough
support to table it in Parliament. The National Democratic Alliance,
particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party, was most vocal in opposing the move,
along with civil society.
It is strange that the idea has been revived now without producing a shred of evidence as to how many times draft papers and internal deliberations have been disclosed, and what detriment such openness has caused to the government’s interests.
The idea of a ministerial veto over disclosure is also not a new one. Several Commonwealth countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and even Scotland have such provisions in their freedom of information laws, but these have been used rarely and, even when used, are subject to strict judicial review.
The most famous case of judicial correction of the abuse of veto power is the eventual disclosure of the correspondence between the then Prince of Wales, now King Charles III, and government departments. The Supreme Court of England and Wales overruled the veto, holding that ministers cannot overrule an appellate tribunal’s decision simply because they do not agree with it.
The Economic Survey is silent on when the ministerial veto will be applied before the Information Commission decides an appeal or after a disclosure order is issued by the Commission.
This idea of a ministerial veto runs counter to the very grain of the people’s right to know, as explained by Justice P. N. Bhagwati in the S. P. Gupta vs President of India Constitution Bench case in 1983 (also known as the ‘First Judges’ Case).
Justice Bhagwati said that protecting Cabinet records and other official papers containing internal deliberations within government, on the ground that it would promote candour and frankness among bureaucrats who fear public disclosure of their views, is no longer sustainable in the twentieth century.
Disclosure cannot be withheld on the ground that it may embarrass the government or the head of the department, as that is not a public interest argument.
Crown privilege, which protected such interests until the 20th century, has been replaced by the much stronger test of public interest immunity.
Whether the disclosure of records will harm a legitimate public interest or not is the current test.
This is exactly how the RTI Act especially Section 8(1) and the public interest override in Section 8(2) has been crafted.
Whether disclosure will harm any of the protected interests listed in the 10 exemption clauses is the test.
Even if they do, the Information Commission can direct disclosure of exempt information in the larger public interest.
The Survey does not account for these developments; instead, it seeks public debate on ideas and practices that have long been discarded or are rarely used today.
The government, almost always being an interested party in information access disputes, cannot independently decide what is or is not in the public interest in the way the judiciary or an autonomous Information Commission can.
To float such ideas and then end that chapter – and the entire Economic Survey – with a reference to the late Mark Tully’s Ninth Palkhivala Memorial Lecture, titled ‘India…must move from a Ruler’s Raj to a Citizen’s Raj,’ is a stark irony.
This is merely the latest in a list of contradictory ideas that pepper the Economic Survey, which calls for transforming the welfare state into an entrepreneurial state where citizens are reduced to consumers of public services rather than equal stakeholders in the world’s largest democracy.
The DPDP Act amended the RTI Act in a retrograde manner by removing parity between the citizenry and their elected representatives MPs and MLAs/MLCs in terms of access to information.
Now, the Economic Survey seeks to initiate debate on even more regressive measures that would further curtail the contours of the transparency regime.
Strangely, the chief economist who authored the Survey appears to view the citizenry as an adversary of the state rather than as the very reason and purpose for the state’s continued existence.
(Venkatesh Nayak is Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. Views expressed are personal.)
The Economic Survey seeks to initiate debate on even more regressive measures that would further curtail the contours of the transparency regime.
It is strange that the idea has been revived now without producing a shred of evidence as to how many times draft papers and internal deliberations have been disclosed, and what detriment such openness has caused to the government’s interests.
The idea of a ministerial veto over disclosure is also not a new one. Several Commonwealth countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and even Scotland have such provisions in their freedom of information laws, but these have been used rarely and, even when used, are subject to strict judicial review.
The most famous case of judicial correction of the abuse of veto power is the eventual disclosure of the correspondence between the then Prince of Wales, now King Charles III, and government departments. The Supreme Court of England and Wales overruled the veto, holding that ministers cannot overrule an appellate tribunal’s decision simply because they do not agree with it.
The Economic Survey is silent on when the ministerial veto will be applied before the Information Commission decides an appeal or after a disclosure order is issued by the Commission.
This idea of a ministerial veto runs counter to the very grain of the people’s right to know, as explained by Justice P. N. Bhagwati in the S. P. Gupta vs President of India Constitution Bench case in 1983 (also known as the ‘First Judges’ Case).
Justice Bhagwati said that protecting Cabinet records and other official papers containing internal deliberations within government, on the ground that it would promote candour and frankness among bureaucrats who fear public disclosure of their views, is no longer sustainable in the twentieth century.
Disclosure cannot be withheld on the ground that it may embarrass the government or the head of the department, as that is not a public interest argument.
Crown privilege, which protected such interests until the 20th century, has been replaced by the much stronger test of public interest immunity.
Whether the disclosure of records will harm a legitimate public interest or not is the current test.
This is exactly how the RTI Act especially Section 8(1) and the public interest override in Section 8(2) has been crafted.
Whether disclosure will harm any of the protected interests listed in the 10 exemption clauses is the test.
Even if they do, the Information Commission can direct disclosure of exempt information in the larger public interest.
The Survey does not account for these developments; instead, it seeks public debate on ideas and practices that have long been discarded or are rarely used today.
The government, almost always being an interested party in information access disputes, cannot independently decide what is or is not in the public interest in the way the judiciary or an autonomous Information Commission can.
To float such ideas and then end that chapter – and the entire Economic Survey – with a reference to the late Mark Tully’s Ninth Palkhivala Memorial Lecture, titled ‘India…must move from a Ruler’s Raj to a Citizen’s Raj,’ is a stark irony.
This is merely the latest in a list of contradictory ideas that pepper the Economic Survey, which calls for transforming the welfare state into an entrepreneurial state where citizens are reduced to consumers of public services rather than equal stakeholders in the world’s largest democracy.
The DPDP Act amended the RTI Act in a retrograde manner by removing parity between the citizenry and their elected representatives MPs and MLAs/MLCs in terms of access to information.
Now, the Economic Survey seeks to initiate debate on even more regressive measures that would further curtail the contours of the transparency regime.
Strangely, the chief economist who authored the Survey appears to view the citizenry as an adversary of the state rather than as the very reason and purpose for the state’s continued existence.
(Venkatesh Nayak is Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. Views expressed are personal.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
