Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005

The RTI Act, 2005 has played a pivotal role in fostering transparency and accountability in India’s public institutions. As it celebrates 20 years of implementation in October 2025, a study has highlighted significant gaps in its functioning, which underscore the strains the transparency system is under.

Key Facts About the RTI Act, 2005

About:

• Enacted in 2005, the RTI Act empowers Indian citizens to access information held by public authorities, promoting government transparency, accountability, and good governance.

• The first RTI application was filed by Shahid Raza Burney in Pune under this law.

Core Components:

• Universal Applicability: The Act applies to all government levels — Central, State, and local bodies.

• Section 8(2): Allows disclosure of information when public interest outweighs confidentiality.

• Section 22: Ensures the RTI Act supersedes any contradictions with other laws.

Exemptions:

• The RTI Act does not entitle citizens to access information that could harm India’s sovereignty, integrity, security, or strategic interests, or information that might impact international relations or lead to criminal activities.

Achievements of the RTI Act

1. Promoting Accountability:

   • The RTI Act has improved the transparency in the use of public funds. It has helped expose malpractices like MGNREGA frauds, issues in Public Distribution Systems (PDS), and other local development projects, ultimately reducing leakages and misuse.

2. Exposing Scams:

   • The Act has played a key role in exposing major scams like the Adarsh Society, 2G spectrum, and Commonwealth Games.

3. Citizen Empowerment:

   • It has brought about a culture of public scrutiny where citizens can actively question and seek answers from public institutions.

Key Challenges Facing the RTI Act, 2005

1. Considerable Delays:

   • Information Commissions (ICs) often face long waiting times. For example, in some states like Telangana and Tripura, the waiting time for cases is estimated to be up to 29 years and 23 years, respectively.

2. Vacant Positions:

   • There have been periods when Information Commissions were completely defunct due to the non-appointment of new commissioners. Notably, commissions in Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh are currently defunct.

3. Erosion Through Legislative Changes:

   • The RTI Amendment Act, 2019 reduced the autonomy of Information Commissioners by giving the Central Government power to set their salaries, tenure, and terms of service.

   • The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 further complicates RTI by exempting personal information from disclosure, including that of public officials.

4. Expansion of Exemptions:

   • Many government departments invoke provisions of national security, such as the Official Secrets Act, 1923, to deny RTI requests, especially in sensitive areas like the RAW and IB.

5. Threats to RTI Activists:

   • RTI activists face harassment, violence, and even death. Many activists have been attacked or killed due to their work in exposing corruption. The Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014 remains weak in its enforcement.

Reforms Needed to Strengthen RTI Framework

1. Strengthening Information Commissions:

   • Timely Appointments: Ensure transparent and time-bound appointments of commissioners to prevent delays in processing RTI requests.

   • Adequate Resources: Provide Information Commissions with adequate staff, technology, and infrastructure to handle increasing case backlogs.

   • Performance Benchmarks: Establish benchmarks for commissioners to improve efficiency and reduce backlogs.

2. Integrating Technology:

   • Use AI chatbots and automated assistants to help citizens draft RTI applications.

   • Blockchain could be utilized for data authenticity and transparency.

   • Integration with platforms like DigiLocker for real-time tracking of RTI requests will improve access and monitoring.

3. Strict Adherence to the Law:

   • Enforce mandatory proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act, requiring public authorities to make certain information publicly available without the need for a request.

   • Penalties for wrongful denials or delays by Public Information Officers (PIOs) should be strictly enforced to ensure accountability.

   • Timely Annual Reports: Ensure that Information Commissions submit their Annual Reports as per Section 25 to maintain transparency and provide public insights into their functioning.

4. Protection of RTI Activists:

   • Fully implement the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014, ensuring anonymous complaints and emergency safeguards for RTI activists.

   • Establish district-level helplines, support cells, and legal aid funds to assist and protect RTI activists from harassment.

   • Fast-track courts should handle attacks or threats against RTI activists to ensure swift justice.

5. Partial Reinstatement of Autonomy:

   • The process of appointing Information Commissioners should involve parliamentary oversight rather than executive discretion to strengthen their independence.

   • Periodic reviews by the Supreme Court and High Courts can further ensure the autonomy and independence of the Information Commissions.

Conclusion

Two decades after its enactment, the RTI Act, 2005 has undeniably contributed to strengthening democratic governance, improving accountability, and empowering citizens. However, it now faces several systemic challenges, including vacancies, delays, and attacks on activists. To preserve its core objectives of transparency and accountability, urgent reforms are needed, such as strengthening the Information Commissions, enforcing penalties, integrating technology, and ensuring the protection of RTI activists.