THE RTI IS NOW THE ‘RIGHT TO DENY INFORMATION’

THE CONTEXT: India’s Right to Information Act (2005), enacted to empower citizens through transparency, has been undermined by systemic c.allenges, including judicial dilution, bureaucratic resistance, and the 2019 amendments weakening the Information Commission’s autonomy. This has led to increased rejections and attacks on 100+ activists, earning it the tag “Right to Deny Information.”

FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES:

1. Democratization of Governance:

• • The RTI Act, 2005, operationalizes Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, transforming citizens from passive recipients to active stakeholders in governance. Recognized as a “master key to democracy” by activists like Aruna Roy, it redefines power dynamics by enabling citizens to audit public institutions.
  • Global Inspiration: While inspired by Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act (1766), India’s RTI is unique for its penalty provisions (up to ₹25,000 for non-compliance) and proactive disclosure mandates (Section 4), making it a global benchmark for transparency laws.

2. Anti-Corruption Tool:

• • The Act was born from grassroots movements like the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan, which exposed corruption in public works. By 2025, over 25 million RTI applications have been filed, uncovering scams like the Adarsh Housing Society (2010) and Vyapam recruitment scandal (2013).

KEY FEATURES:

1. Time-Bound Transparency:

• • 30-day rule: The rule mandates that PIOs respond within 30 days (48 hours for life/liberty matters). However, 40% of applications face delays, with states like Maharashtra reporting a 1 to 2-year pendency due to understaffed commissions.
  • Proactive Disclosure: Section 4(1)(b) requires public authorities to publish 17 categories of information, reducing bureaucratic opacity. For instance, PM CARES Fund disclosures were enforced via RTI in 2020.

2. Quasi-Judicial Framework:

• • Information Commissions: Serve as appellate bodies, blending judicial and administrative roles. However, 52% of Chief Information Commissioner posts were vacant in 2023, crippling efficiency.
  • Penal Provisions: Section 20 imposes fines on errant officials, yet only 4% of cases saw penalties levied between 2015–2023, reflecting lax enforcement.

CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTATION

1. Institutional Bottlenecks

Delays in Appeals

• • Pendency Crisis: As of February 2025, 4.2 crore RTI applications and 26 lakh second appeals are pending across India, with an average wait time of 2 years.
    • Tamil Nadu: 45-47% of appeals face delays of 2-3 years, with only 10% resolved within a year.
    • Central Information Commission (CIC): Operates with just 3 out of 11 sanctioned commissioners, leading to 23,000 pending appeals as of January 2025.
  • Comparative Inefficiency: Information Commissioners dispose of <2,500 cases/year, while High Courts resolve 2,500+ cases despite handling complex matters. This reflects systemic apathy toward RTI’s 30-day mandate.

Appointment Issues

• • Bureaucratic Dominance: 70% of Information Commissioners are retired bureaucrats, fostering institutional bias. Commissions prioritize bureaucratic loyalty over transparency.
  • Vacancy Crisis: 52% of Chief Information Commissioner posts were vacant in 2023. States like Jharkhand faced delays due to the absence of a Leader of Opposition in the selection committee.
  • Judicial Interventions: The Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2025) mandated timely appointments yet states like Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh continue to lag.

2. Bureaucratic Resistance

Legislative Amendments

• • 2019 RTI Amendments: Reduced commissioners’ tenure and allowed the government to fix salaries, diluting institutional autonomy. Critics argue this turned CIC into a “parking lot for loyalists”.
  • 2023 DPDP Act: Exempted personal data from RTI, overriding Section 8(1)(j)’s public-interest test. Legal scholar Usha Ramanathan terms this a “legislative coup against transparency”.

Non-Compliance Culture

• • Penalty Evasion: Only 4% of cases saw penalties imposed on PIOs between 2015–2023. For instance, Tamil Nadu’s commission penalized officials in just 21 out of 13,966 cases in 2024.
  • Strategic Denials: PMO and key ministries reject 30% of RTI queries under vague Section 8 exemptions, including details on electoral bonds and Rafale deals.

Harassment of Activists

• • Over 100 RTI users have been attacked or killed since 2005, including Maharashtra’s Satish Shetty (2010) and Bihar’s Bhola Yadav (2022), creating a chilling effect.

JUDICIAL INTERVENTIONS AND DILUTION

1. Supreme Court’s Restrictive Stance

Aditya Bandopadhyay Case (2011):

• • Background: CBSE denied access to evaluated answer sheets under Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary relationship). SC permitted disclosure but introduced restrictive interpretations.
  • Key Observations:
    • Para 33: Advocated “balanced” RTI interpretation, prioritizing administrative efficiency over transparency.
    • Para 37: Criticized “indiscriminate” RTI use, labeling applicants as potential disruptors of “national development, peace, and harmony”.
  • Impact:
    • Legitimized denial of information using vague grounds like “public interest” and “non-productive work”.
    • Post-2011, Maharashtra saw a 22% rise in RTI rejections under Section 8 exemptions.

2. Narrowing Scope of Section 8(1)(j)

Girish Deshpande Case (2012):

• • Background: Sought details of a public servant’s assets and disciplinary records. SC denied information under “personal privacy”, ignoring the public activity test.
  • Flawed Reasoning:
    • Overlooked the RTI Act’s provison: “Information accessible to legislatures must be shared with citizens”.
    • Redefined “personal information” to include service records, shielding corruption (e.g., Vyapam scam whistleblowers faced rejections citing this judgment).
  • Consequences:
    • 35% of RTI rejections now cite Section 8(1)(j) (CHRI, 2024).
    • Precedent for 6+ subsequent cases, including R.K. Jain v. UOI (2019), denying access to judges’ asset details.

3. Legislative Amendments

Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023:

• • Key Changes:
    • Replaced Section 8(1)(j) with a blanket exemption for “information relating to personal data,” overriding public interest tests.
    • Expanded definition of “person” to include corporates, HUFs, and the State, enabling systemic denials (e.g., PM-CARES Fund details denied post-2023).
  • Impact Analysis:
    • 48% surge in RTI rejections linked to personal data in 2024 (NCPRI).
    • Tamil Nadu denied access to MLA fund utilization records, terming it “personal data”.

THE WAY FORWARD:

1. Strengthen Information Commissions: Institutional Reforms

• • Mandate Diversity in Appointments: Enact RTI Rules requiring 50% commissioners from non-bureaucratic backgrounds (civil society, academia, media). Use the Ranganath Misra Committee (1991) model for diversity in public appointments.
  • Fix Time Limits: Amend Section 25 to impose 90-day disposal deadline for appeals, with AI-driven dashboards for real-time monitoring (Telangana portal, 2023: 30% faster processing).
  • Link Funding to Performance: Adopt the NITI Aayog’s Outcome Budgeting model—states with <10% pendency receive 15% higher grants.

2. Judicial Course-Correction: Rebalancing Privacy & Public Interest

• • Constitution Bench Review: Re-examine Girish Deshpandeusing the “public activity test” from Raj Narain v. State of UP (1975). Follow South Africa’s PAIA Act , which requires privacy impact assessments before denial.

• • Define “Public Interest”: Introduce a three-pronged test (suggested by Justice A.P. Shah):

1. Proportionality: Harm vs. benefit of disclosure.

2. Precedent: CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)’s “public scrutiny” principle.

3. Participatory: Local hearings for contested RTIs (Kerala’s Janakeeya Prathirodha Samiti model).

3. Tech-Driven Transparency: Blockchain & AI Integration

• • Blockchain RTI Portals: Karnataka uses blockchain to auto-redact personal data while disclosing public records, cutting delays by 40%.

• • AI Chatbots: Scale Telangana’s AI system (2023: 195 RTIs resolved in 15 days) nationally. Integrate with UMANG App for vernacular support.
  • Offline Access: Deploy PM e-VIDYA kiosks (15,000 installed by 2025) in gram panchayats for offline RTI filing.

4. Citizen Oversight Committees: Decentralized Accountability

• • Kerala Model: Legislate Janakeeya Prathirodha Samitis (People’s Committees) in all districts to audit PIO responses, using Section 4(1)(b) proactive disclosures.
  • Social Audits: Mandate MGNREGA-style audits for RTI compliance. Bihar’s “RTI on Wheels” (2024: 62% rural uptake) shows scalability.
  • Whistleblower Protection: Align with UN Convention Against Corruption (ratified by India, 2011) to shield RTI users; fast-track courts for attacks (100+ killed since 2005).

5. RTI Literacy Campaigns: Education as Empowerment

• • Curriculum Integration: Include RTI modules in NSS/NCC(50 million students) and DIKSHA Portal (12 million teachers).
  • Gamification: Launch “RTI Champions” app with UPSC-style case studies (e.g., Vyapam scam resolution).
  • Awareness Drives: Partner with PM Youth Mentorship Scheme to train 500,000 “RTI Ambassadors” by 2026.

6. Legislative Reforms: Overriding the DPDP Act’s Anti-RTI Clauses

• • RTI Amendment Bill 2025: Insert Section 8(3)to override DPDP exemptions when public interest outweighs privacy. Use Raj Narain’s precedent: “In a democracy, accountability trumps secrecy.”
  • Lokpal Synergy: Amend the Lokpal Act (2013) to share asset disclosures (via RTI) with the public, as the 2nd ARC Report suggested.
  • Global Benchmarking: Adopt EU’s GDPR Article 5(1)(b)—transparency as a “legitimate interest” overriding privacy.

THE CONCLUSION:

The RTI Act’s revitalization demands judicial clarity, tech innovation, and civic participation synergy. By anchoring reforms in constitutional morality (Preamble’s “justice, liberty, equality”) and global best practices, India can transition from a “Right to Deny Information” to a “Right to Empowered Citizenship.” As the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) asserts, “The RTI Act isn’t a law—it’s a revolution waiting to be reclaimed.”

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss. 2020

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. The Right to Information Act, 2005, hailed as a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, has faced systemic erosion. Critically analyze how it has diluted the Act’s original intent.

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-rti-is-now-the-right-to-deny-information/article69259261.ece#:~:text=Girish%20Ramchandra%20Deshpande%20amends%20the,amends%20the%20RTI%20Act%20itself.

Spread the Word