Right to Information (RTI) Act at 20

16.10.2025

Right to Information (RTI) Act at 20

Context       
 As the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, completes two decades, concerns have risen over its declining impact. Civil society and transparency advocates caution that institutional weakening, vacancies, and the restrictive provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, threaten the law’s core democratic purpose.

About the RTI Act

Enacted in 2005, the RTI Act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities at minimal cost. It was envisioned as a pillar of transparent, accountable, and participatory governance.

Core Features:

• Three-tier structure: Public Information Officers, First Appellate Authorities, and Central/State Information Commissions (CIC/SIC).
   
• Mandatory disclosure: Section 4 requires proactive publication of government data.
   
• Time-bound process: Replies within 30 days, or 48 hours for urgent matters.
   
• Penalties: Up to ₹25,000 for delays or refusals.
   
• Democratic access: Information available to Parliament must also be open to citizens.
   

Impact and Achievements

In 20 years, the RTI Act has reshaped state–citizen relations:

• Empowering citizens: Over 2.5 crore RTI applications deepened participatory democracy.
   
• Curbing corruption: Exposed scams such as 2G, Commonwealth Games, and Adarsh Housing.
   
• Better governance: Encouraged transparency in decision-making and fund use.
   
• Judicial backing: Courts affirmed inclusion of political parties and the PMO under RTI.
   
• Inclusive access: Enabled marginalized groups to secure welfare and entitlements.
   

Challenges and Concerns

Despite its achievements, the RTI framework faces multiple hurdles:

• Vacancies and delays: Long backlogs weaken effectiveness.
   
• Reduced autonomy: The 2019 Amendment removed fixed tenure and pay parity, enhancing executive control.
   
• Weak enforcement: Only about 1% of defaulting officials face penalties.
   
• Political interference: Appointments often lack transparency.
   
• Legal barriers: DPDPA’s limits on “personal data” disclosure curb transparency in public expenditure.
   
• Opacity and inaction: Data withholding and judicial restraint foster non-compliance.
   

Way Forward

To restore RTI’s vitality, reforms must focus on:

• Institutional strengthening: Fill CIC/SIC vacancies promptly.
   
• Autonomy restoration: Reinstate fixed tenure and parity to ensure independence.
   
• Legal harmony: Amend DPDPA to balance privacy with accountability.
   
• Digital modernization: Expand unified RTI portals for online tracking and hearings.
   
• Civic vigilance: Empower citizens, media, and courts to defend the right to information.
   

Conclusion
 After 20 years, the RTI Act remains a crucial democratic safeguard but suffers from institutional neglect and restrictive laws. Reviving it demands political will, independent oversight, and citizen engagement. Transparency must stay central to governance, ensuring accountability and public trust.