What the RTI Act Changed — and What It Didn't
The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted by the United Progressive Alliance government on October 12, 2005, emerging from a grassroots transparency movement led by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan, which had through the 1990s organised "jan sunwais" (public hearings) at which government records were read out for community verification.
The RTI Act gave every Indian citizen the legal right to request information from any public authority within 30 days (48 hours for matters concerning life or liberty) for a nominal fee of ₹10. It created a three-tier accountability structure: Public Information Officers (PIOs) in every department to receive and respond to requests; First Appellate Authorities to hear appeals from PIOs; and Central and State Information Commissions as oversight bodies with power to penalise non-compliance up to ₹25,000 per case.
 |
| Representational Image: What the RTI Act Changed — and What It Didn't |
The RTI Act's achievements in its first decade were
substantial and documented. It exposed major corruption scandals: the 2G
spectrum scam, the Commonwealth Games scam, the Adarsh Housing society scam in
Mumbai, and irregularities in MGNREGA and PDS were all initially surfaced
through RTI disclosures. It empowered ordinary citizens to verify whether
welfare scheme benefits they were entitled to had actually been delivered or
diverted. It created a new category of civil society actor — the RTI activist —
whose capacity to demand and publicise government information generated
sustained accountability pressure. However, its effectiveness has been
progressively eroded since approximately 2014 through a combination of:
deliberate delays in appointing Information Commissioners; passage of the RTI
(Amendment) Act, 2019 which changed the service conditions and tenure of
Information Commissioners in ways that increased their dependence on the
executive; and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA), whose
Section 44(3) amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to impose a blanket
exemption for "personal information" — removing the "larger
public interest" exception that had previously allowed disclosure of
public servants' asset declarations and disciplinary proceedings.
Before You Read On
- Over
2.5 crore (25 million) RTI applications have been filed since 2005; as of
2025, the total national backlog of appeals and complaints across Central
and State Information Commissions exceeds 4 lakh (400,000), with
Maharashtra alone carrying over 100,000 pending cases; Karnataka 50,000;
Tamil Nadu 41,000.
- The
RTI Amendment Act, 2019 changed Information Commissioners' tenure and
salary from fixed statutory entitlements (equivalent to Election
Commissioners) to conditions determinable by the Central Government —
removing the fixed tenure protection that insulated Commissioners from
executive pressure; critics including former Central Information
Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu argue this has made Commissioners more
willing to defer to government.
- DPDPA,
2023, Section 44(3): supersedes RTI Section 8(1)(j) by creating a blanket
exemption for "personal information" without the "larger
public interest" override; this potentially shields information about
public servants' asset declarations, educational qualifications,
disciplinary proceedings — information previously considered essential for
accountability; InsightsOnIndia (October 2025) described RTI at 20 as
"alive but weakened by neglect and capture."
- Commonwealth
Human Rights Initiative (2023) documented: more than 51 RTI activists have
been murdered since 2005; over 300 have been harassed or attacked; the
Whistleblowers Protection Act (2014) provides minimal practical
protection.
- Only
4% of Public Information Officers were penalised for violations between
2015 and 2023 (CHRI data); in Tamil Nadu, only 21 penalties were imposed
in nearly 14,000 cases in 2024; the penalty mechanism — the Act's primary
deterrent against bureaucratic evasion — functions very rarely.
How It Works in Practice
1. Filing an RTI request: Any Indian citizen can file
an RTI application to any public authority — central or state government
department, PSU, regulatory body, or body receiving substantial government
funding — by paying ₹10 and submitting a written request. Online RTI filing is
available for central government departments through RTIonline.gov.in; state
governments have varying digital portals. Citizens below the poverty line are
exempt from fees. The PIO must respond within 30 days; if the PIO denies information
or fails to respond, the citizen can file a first appeal to the First Appellate
Authority and then a second appeal or complaint to the Central or State
Information Commission.
2. The social audit mechanism: One of RTI's most
significant impacts has been in MGNREGA social audits — where wage registers,
attendance muster rolls, and expenditure statements are made available to gram
sabhas (village assemblies) for verification. In states where social audits function
well (Andhra Pradesh, Telangana), they have exposed significant corruption in
MGNREGA implementation and produced restitution and corrective action. Social
audit combined with RTI creates a ground-level accountability mechanism that
operates independently of formal law enforcement.
3. The Information Commission bottleneck: Central and
State Information Commissions are supposed to adjudicate second appeals and
complaints, imposing penalties for non-compliance. In practice, delays in
appointing Commissioners (creating vacancies that pile up cases), low penalty
imposition rates (4%), and limited Commission staff capacity have created
massive backlogs. Maharashtra's 100,000+ pending cases illustrate how a
theoretically powerful second appeal mechanism has become practically
inaccessible through institutional overload.
4. The PM CARES Fund exemption: The government in
2023 refused to disclose details about the PM CARES Fund (Prime Minister's
Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund) — a public fund
created for COVID-19 relief — by invoking exemption clauses; the refusal was
challenged in courts; the incident exemplifies the increasing use of exemption
clauses to withhold politically sensitive information.
5. Digital divide as RTI barrier: While the online
RTI portal improves access for urban, internet-connected citizens,
approximately 45% of India's population (665 million) lacks internet access
(IAMAI-Kantar, 2023). RTI's most impactful uses — verifying welfare scheme
implementation, checking land records, exposing local corruption — are most
needed in rural areas where digital literacy and internet access are lowest.
The shift toward online RTI filing has created a new form of information access
inequality.
What People Often Misunderstand
- RTI
does not give unlimited right to all information: Section 8 of the RTI
Act specifies 10 exemption categories including national security,
confidential Cabinet proceedings, trade secrets, and personal privacy;
these exemptions are applied by PIOs who have shown increasing willingness
to use them broadly.
- The
RTI Act has not eliminated corruption — it has created an accountability
tool: RTI is a transparency mechanism, not an anti-corruption
enforcement mechanism; it gives citizens information that they can use to
hold officials accountable through other means (courts, media, civil
society); the Act's impact depends on how that information is subsequently
used.
- Information
Commissions are quasi-judicial bodies, not courts: Commissioners can
penalise PIOs and order information disclosure; they cannot impose
criminal penalties, dismiss officers, or prosecute corruption; their
enforcement power is limited to fines and compensation to the applicant.
- The
"larger public interest" exception was a critical protection:
The DPDPA's removal of the "larger public interest" override to
the personal information exemption is not a technical amendment — it is a
substantive change that potentially shields public servants' professional
conduct from RTI disclosure under the privacy banner; its full impact
depends on how courts interpret the amendment.
- RTI
activists' murders are documented, not alleged: The Commonwealth Human
Rights Initiative's documentation of 51+ RTI activist murders since 2005
is based on verified cases; the murders are typically related to exposure
of local corruption in land, mining, water, or welfare administration;
they represent the ultimate form of anti-transparency enforcement.
What Changes Over Time
The 20th anniversary of the RTI Act (October 2025) produced
multiple assessments — from VisionIAS, InsightsOnIndia, DownToEarth, and
Drishti IAS — consistently identifying the same erosion pattern: vacant
Commissioner posts, DPDPA's personal information amendment, government data
hoarding on key datasets (unemployment, COVID deaths, crime statistics), and
increased use of exemption clauses. The DPDPA Rules are expected to be notified
before the next Parliament session (as indicated by the Minister of Information
and Broadcasting, per SS Rana & Co., October 2025); their operational
impact on RTI will clarify once the Rules define the boundaries of the new
personal information exemption.
Sources and Further Reading
- RTI
Portal — Government of India: https://rti.gov.in/
- InsightsOnIndia
— RTI at 20: Transparency on Decline: https://www.insightsonindia.com/2025/10/15/rti-at-20-transparency-on-decline/
- DownToEarth
— 20 Years of RTI Act: Reviving the Spirit: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/20-years-of-rti-act-reviving-the-spirit-of-the-act-requires-a-multifaceted-approach
- SS Rana & Co. — DPDP Act Upholds Privacy while Preserving RTI: https://ssrana.in/articles/dpdp-act-upholds-privacy-while-preserving-transparency-under-right-to-information-act/
- VisionIAS — 20 Years of RTI Act: https://visionias.in/blog/preparation-strategy/20-years-of-rti-act-achievements-challenges-and-the-path-forward