The Print: New Delhi: Monday, 29 June 2026.
Introduced under Section 27 of RTI Act which empowers states to decide on procedures, fees & administrative requirements, Rules are being seen as ‘roadblock to info’.
The Maharashtra Right to
Information Rules 2026 have amended how citizens can exercise their right to
information under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005.
The Rules, which have already drawn criticism, came into effect through a gazette notification issued by the state’s general administration department on 12 June. They were introduced under the authority of Section 27 of the RTI Act which empowers states to frame rules on procedures, fees, and administrative requirements.
The Rules introduce a word limit and subject restriction for applications, a notable departure from earlier norms. RTI applications must now be confined to a single subject and limited to 150 words. If an applicant seeks information on multiple subjects, separate applications are required.
Speaking with ThePrint on how the new requirements, such as the 150‑word limit, affect the ability of ordinary citizens to exercise their right to information, RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj said: “A majority of RTI applications in the country are filed by the poor and marginalised who do not have the ability to distil their queries into short questions. The 150-word limit will affect them adversely.”
“In a democracy, people have the right to seek information from their government. In keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the government must not place such restrictions on applicants; instead, it should make an effort to provide access to information sought by people.”
She also noted that the RTI Act specifically requires public authorities to assist information seekers and even reduce oral applications in writing.
“The Rules should facilitate people’s right to access information by enabling pro-people provisions rather than creating administrative and bureaucratic bottlenecks in filing applications. Using length of RTI applications as a ground for rejecting the request is unreasonable,” Bharadwaj asserted.
The Maharashtra RTI Rules also make it compulsory for applicants to attach a self‑attested photo identity document to establish citizenship.
Bharadwaj said the photo ID requirement is against the spirit of the RTI Act, which allowed applicants to remain anonymous beyond basic contact details.
“Although the Indian RTI Act can be used only by citizens, mandatorily requiring furnishing of photo ID is unnecessary. This will most adversely impact people from vulnerable and marginalised backgrounds—the homeless, poor, migrants, workers and women,” she told ThePrint.
The new rules further provide for an increase in the application fee, as well as higher charges for obtaining copies of documents and digital extracts. They also specify that appeals now carry a fee.
The revised fee structure has drawn the sharpest criticism from activists. The application fee has been hiked from Rs 10 to Rs 30, photocopy charges from Rs 2 to Rs 5 per A4 page, and digital copies will now be charged at Rs 5 per page. The fee for first and second appeals is Rs 50 and Rs 100, respectively.
Applicants below the poverty line are exempted from paying application and photocopy charges, but this exemption is not absolute. The rules specify that only the first 50 pages of such photocopies of the requested material are free of cost, and once that limit is crossed, the standard rates apply for photocopies and further information.
The RTI Act itself does not prescribe fixed amounts for applications or copies; it simply states that applicants may be charged “reasonable fees” as determined by the rules made under the Act. Under the legislation, below poverty line applicants are exempt from all fees, including application charges and photocopy charges,
The Rules also address repetitive requests. If information has already been provided earlier, the Public Information Officer (PIO) can dispose of repeated applications by referring to the previous correspondence. Such limits are not covered under the Act.
‘Need is to strengthen RTI regime’
On the issue of proactive disclosure, the Maharashtra RTI Rules place responsibility squarely on the heads of public authorities to ensure compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Section 4 is part of the central Act that requires public authorities to publish key information about their organisation, functions, decision‑making processes, budgets, and subsidies on a routine basis, without waiting for individual RTI applications.
The 2005 Act framed this as a broad obligation, but it lacked detailed mechanisms. The Rules tighten this by making the heads of departments personally accountable for ensuring that proactive disclosure to publish information is carried out in practice.
The Rules also introduce a procedural change regarding appeals. If a second appeal is pending before the State Information Commission and in case of death of appellant during the course of proceedings, such appeal shall abate.
According the Bharadwaj, the amendments may become a pretext to reject RTI applications.
“Even through processes like SIR (special intensive revision of electoral rolls in which people had to furnish proof of identity), we have seen the disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities. This will become a new pretext for the government to reject RTI applications,” she said.
“Thousands of people have been threatened and attacked, and over 100 have been killed, for seeking information under the RTI Act and exposing corruption and wrongdoing. The whistleblower protection law, which was passed in 2014, has not been operationalised till date. In this scenario, the urgency is to strengthen and improve the RTI regime not place roadblocks in access to information,” she added.
Introduced under Section 27 of RTI Act which empowers states to decide on procedures, fees & administrative requirements, Rules are being seen as ‘roadblock to info’.
 |
Central Information
Commission in New Delhi | Representational image | Commons |
The Rules, which have already drawn criticism, came into effect through a gazette notification issued by the state’s general administration department on 12 June. They were introduced under the authority of Section 27 of the RTI Act which empowers states to frame rules on procedures, fees, and administrative requirements.
The Rules introduce a word limit and subject restriction for applications, a notable departure from earlier norms. RTI applications must now be confined to a single subject and limited to 150 words. If an applicant seeks information on multiple subjects, separate applications are required.
Speaking with ThePrint on how the new requirements, such as the 150‑word limit, affect the ability of ordinary citizens to exercise their right to information, RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj said: “A majority of RTI applications in the country are filed by the poor and marginalised who do not have the ability to distil their queries into short questions. The 150-word limit will affect them adversely.”
“In a democracy, people have the right to seek information from their government. In keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the government must not place such restrictions on applicants; instead, it should make an effort to provide access to information sought by people.”
She also noted that the RTI Act specifically requires public authorities to assist information seekers and even reduce oral applications in writing.
“The Rules should facilitate people’s right to access information by enabling pro-people provisions rather than creating administrative and bureaucratic bottlenecks in filing applications. Using length of RTI applications as a ground for rejecting the request is unreasonable,” Bharadwaj asserted.
The Maharashtra RTI Rules also make it compulsory for applicants to attach a self‑attested photo identity document to establish citizenship.
Bharadwaj said the photo ID requirement is against the spirit of the RTI Act, which allowed applicants to remain anonymous beyond basic contact details.
“Although the Indian RTI Act can be used only by citizens, mandatorily requiring furnishing of photo ID is unnecessary. This will most adversely impact people from vulnerable and marginalised backgrounds—the homeless, poor, migrants, workers and women,” she told ThePrint.
The new rules further provide for an increase in the application fee, as well as higher charges for obtaining copies of documents and digital extracts. They also specify that appeals now carry a fee.
The revised fee structure has drawn the sharpest criticism from activists. The application fee has been hiked from Rs 10 to Rs 30, photocopy charges from Rs 2 to Rs 5 per A4 page, and digital copies will now be charged at Rs 5 per page. The fee for first and second appeals is Rs 50 and Rs 100, respectively.
Applicants below the poverty line are exempted from paying application and photocopy charges, but this exemption is not absolute. The rules specify that only the first 50 pages of such photocopies of the requested material are free of cost, and once that limit is crossed, the standard rates apply for photocopies and further information.
The RTI Act itself does not prescribe fixed amounts for applications or copies; it simply states that applicants may be charged “reasonable fees” as determined by the rules made under the Act. Under the legislation, below poverty line applicants are exempt from all fees, including application charges and photocopy charges,
The Rules also address repetitive requests. If information has already been provided earlier, the Public Information Officer (PIO) can dispose of repeated applications by referring to the previous correspondence. Such limits are not covered under the Act.
‘Need is to strengthen RTI regime’
On the issue of proactive disclosure, the Maharashtra RTI Rules place responsibility squarely on the heads of public authorities to ensure compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Section 4 is part of the central Act that requires public authorities to publish key information about their organisation, functions, decision‑making processes, budgets, and subsidies on a routine basis, without waiting for individual RTI applications.
The 2005 Act framed this as a broad obligation, but it lacked detailed mechanisms. The Rules tighten this by making the heads of departments personally accountable for ensuring that proactive disclosure to publish information is carried out in practice.
The Rules also introduce a procedural change regarding appeals. If a second appeal is pending before the State Information Commission and in case of death of appellant during the course of proceedings, such appeal shall abate.
According the Bharadwaj, the amendments may become a pretext to reject RTI applications.
“Even through processes like SIR (special intensive revision of electoral rolls in which people had to furnish proof of identity), we have seen the disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities. This will become a new pretext for the government to reject RTI applications,” she said.
“Thousands of people have been threatened and attacked, and over 100 have been killed, for seeking information under the RTI Act and exposing corruption and wrongdoing. The whistleblower protection law, which was passed in 2014, has not been operationalised till date. In this scenario, the urgency is to strengthen and improve the RTI regime not place roadblocks in access to information,” she added.
.JPG)
.JPG)
