Marking the 20th anniversary of the Right to Information (RTI) Act on October 12, the Satark Nagrik Sangathan has released a study assessing the performance of information commissions across India.

About Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005

• Enactment and Implementation: The RTI Act was enacted in June 2005 and came into force on 12 October 2005. 
  • First RTI application was filed at a police station in Pune by Shahid Raza Burney.
• Purpose:  To provide citizens the right to access information under the control of Public Authorities (PAs).
• Objective: It was designed to promote openness in government operations, strengthen accountability, and advance the principles of good governance across public institutions. 
• Nodal Agency: Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions (MoPPG&P).
• Scope: RTI covers Union State and local public authorities with a duty to disclose information on request.
• Override: Section 22 ensures the RTI Act, 2005 takes precedence over any inconsistencies with other laws. 
• Broad Definition of Information: Section 2(f) defines information to include records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, and samples held by public authorities.
• Timelines: Information must be given in 30 days and in 48 hours for life or liberty matters.
• Exemptions:
  • Section 8 specifies certain exemptions, such as information related to national security, personal privacy, or trade secrets.
  • Provision for Exceptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act:
    • The sovereignty and integrity of India
    • Security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State 
    • Relations with Foreign States 

• • • Lead to incitement of an offense 
    • Section 8 (2) provides exemption under Official Secrets Act, 1923.
  • Certain intelligence and security organizations listed in the Second Schedule, like the Intelligence Bureau (IB), RAW, and National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), are excluded from the Act’s purview.
• Institutional Framework: The Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) are established to oversee the Act’s implementation and to address appeals regarding the denial of information.
• • Public Information Officers (PIOs): Designated in every public office to process RTI applications.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Amendments to the Act

• RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 
  • It gave the central government the authority to determine the tenure, salaries, and terms of service for CICs and Information Commissioners (ICs), raising concerns about their independence.
  • It changed the fixed five-year tenure to a variable period determined by the Central Government, now ranging up to three years. 
  • Salaries and service conditions are now decided by the executive rather than being equivalent to Election Commissioners and Supreme Court judges.
• Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 
  • It amended Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, exempting all personal information from disclosure, which can restrict the transparency of public officials’ actions.
  • It introduced a blanket exemption for personal information unless the Public Information Officer determines that larger public interest justifies disclosure. 

Significance of the Right to Information (RTI)

• Empowerment of Citizens: RTI empowers citizens to actively participate in the democratic process by providing access to information about government policies, decisions, and activities.
  • It strengthens the role of individuals in questioning and holding authorities accountable.
• Promotion of Transparency: Proactive disclosure of information by public authorities (as mandated by Section 4 of the RTI Act) ensures transparency in governance. It minimizes secrecy in the functioning of public institutions.
  • Example: RTI revealed irregularities in the coal block allocation (Coalgate scam), compelling systemic reforms in resource allocation.
• Accountability in Governance: RTI establishes a mechanism for public authorities to justify their actions and decisions.
  • It helps citizens monitor government efficiency and ensures that officials remain answerable for their conduct.
  • RTI uncovered the non-utilization of funds allocated under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) in several constituencies, ensuring better utilization of public money.
• Tool to Combat Corruption: By uncovering malpractices and irregularities, RTI acts as a powerful instrument to fight corruption.
  • Example: The RTI Act was instrumental in exposing the Adarsh Housing Society scam in Maharashtra.
• Effective Implementation of Policies: RTI enhances the implementation of government schemes and welfare programs by enabling citizens to verify and monitor their progress.
  • Example: RTI was used in Rajasthan to expose discrepancies in MGNREGA records.
• Strengthening Democracy: RTI fosters participatory democracy by creating an informed citizenry.
  • It ensures that the government remains responsive to the needs of the people.
• Encouragement of Better Record-Keeping: The obligation to disclose information encourages public authorities to maintain records systematically and efficiently.
  • Following multiple RTI queries, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs revamped its filing systems under the MCA21 initiative to improve access to corporate records.
• Enhancing Public Trust: Transparency and accountability foster trust between the government and its citizens.
• Safeguarding Fundamental Rights: RTI strengthens fundamental rights like freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) by enabling access to essential information.
• Promoting Good Governance: RTI serves as a cornerstone for good governance by fostering accountability, transparency, and citizen empowerment.

Challenges in the Implementation of the RTI Act

• Functional Challenges
  • Severe Vacancy Crisis: A Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) report reveals that many Central and State Information Commissions (CIC/SICs) were either defunct or operating below capacity between July 2024 – October 2025.
    • Six State Commissions (Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Telangana, Goa, Tripura, and Madhya Pradesh) were non-functional for extended periods due to all commissioner posts being vacant; Two were completely defunct.
    • The Central Information Commission itself has only 2 Information Commissioners out of 11 sanctioned posts, including the vacant Chief Information Commissioner’s position.
  • Backlog of Appeals and Complaints: Over 2.41 lakh appeals and complaints were registered between July 1, 2024 and June 30, 2025
    • Only 1.8 lakh cases were disposed of between July 2024–June 2025 by 27 commissions, indicating worsening pendency.
    • Maharashtra SIC handled the most cases (38,410 disposed), followed by: Uttar Pradesh (30,552) > Karnataka (26,802)  > Tamil Nadu (22,336)
    • Maharashtra also had the highest new cases (54,869 filed), followed by Tamil Nadu (27,748) and Karnataka (27,490).
    • At the current pace, Telangana SIC would take 29 years to clear its backlog.
  • Inadequate Gender Representation: Since 2005, only 9 % of all Information Commissioners have been women, highlighting gender imbalance.
  • Accountability and Oversight Lapses: 20 of 29 commissions failed to publish annual reports for 2023–24, a violation of statutory obligations.
    • Penalties on officers for denying or delaying information were not imposed in 98% of eligible cases.
• Structural Challenges
  • Exemptions under Section 8: The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 amended Section 8(1), exempting all personal information from disclosure, including that of public officials. Exemptions for reasons like national security and personal privacy are often misused to deny information.
  • Dilution through Amendments: The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 gave the Central Government the power to determine the tenure, salary, and service conditions of Information Commissioners, potentially affecting their independence.
• Procedural Challenges
  • Operational Challenges: Public Information Officers (PIOs) sometimes face challenges in responding to requests due to the Volume of applications, Complexity of information sought & Resource constraints in public offices.
    • Estimated 4-6 million RTI applications are filed annually in India.
    • As of June 2025, over 4 lakh appeals and complaints were pending: Maharashtra (95,340) > Karnataka (47,825) > Tamil Nadu (41,059)
  • Bureaucratic Resistance: Public officials are often reluctant to disclose information to protect themselves from scrutiny or to conceal inefficiency and corruption.
  • Non-Compliance by Political Parties: Despite being brought under the RTI Act’s purview, major political parties have not appointed Public Information Officers (PIOs).
  • Delays in Providing Information: While the Act mandates information to be provided within 30 days, delays are common due to inefficiency or lack of accountability.
• Awareness and Safety: 
  • Safety Concerns for RTI Activists: Activists who expose corruption or misuse of power face threats, harassment, and even violence.
    • Several RTI activists have been attacked or killed in retaliation for seeking information.
  • Weak Whistleblower Protection: The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014, lacks robust provisions to safeguard those who expose wrongdoing, including RTI activists.

Way Forward for RTI in India

• Filling Vacancies: Ensure timely appointments to CICs and SICs to reduce pendency and improve efficiency.
• Backlog Management: Implementing systematic case management systems and setting realistic timelines for appeal disposal to address the 4 lakh pending cases.

• Enhancing Proactive Disclosure: Enforce mandatory proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 and impose penalties on Public Information Officers (PIOs) for wrongful denials or delays to strengthen RTI enforcement.
• Timely publishing annual reports: Ensure Information Commissions submit timely Annual Reports under Section 25 RTI Act, 2005 to maintain transparency and accountability.
• Enhancing Awareness: Conduct widespread awareness campaigns, especially in rural and marginalized areas.
• Strengthening the Whistleblowers Protection Act: Introduce stringent provisions and enforcement mechanisms to protect whistleblowers and RTI activists from threats, harassment, and violence.
• Improving Record Management: Digitize records and provide adequate training to PIOs for better record maintenance and retrieval.
• Independent Functioning of Information Commissioners: The appointment process should include parliamentary oversight instead of being left to executive discretion.
  • Suitable changes must be done to ensure the autonomy of Information Commissions by shielding them from political or executive interference.

Conclusion

The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been a cornerstone of India’s democratic governance, empowering citizens with transparency and accountability in public administration. However, its true potential can only be realized through institutional independence, timely appointments, and stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the right to know remains a living reality rather than a procedural formality.

DOWNLOAD PDF