India’s transparency law emerged from a strong public demand for openness in government, but loopholes and institutional weaknesses have steadily eroded its effectiveness. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 increased centralisation by giving the Union Government control over the appointments, tenure, salaries and allowances of Information Commissioners at both central and state levels, raising concerns about their autonomy.
The Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) Report 2024-25 highlights further problems, including delays in appointments, lakhs of pending cases and inadequate training of Public Information Officers, contributing to wider use of Section 8 to deny information or issue generic responses. Unless these institutional and implementation gaps are addressed, RTI risks becoming a procedural right rather than an effective tool of democratic accountability.
Why has the RTI law been paralysed?
The effectiveness of the RTI Act is constrained at the outset by the narrow definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h). The provision does not explicitly include government-monitored funds, trusts and similar entities, allowing institutions such as the PM CARES Fund to remain outside the ambit of the law. This creates a transparency deficit by excluding bodies that deal with public resources from statutory scrutiny and limits the accountability envisaged under the RTI framework.
The institutional architecture of the RTI framework has also changed significantly following the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019. The selection committee for appointing the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Minister, giving the government of the day an advantage in the appointment process. The 2019 amendment also gives the Union Government the power to determine the tenure, salaries and service conditions of both Central and State Information Commissioners, replacing the earlier statutory safeguards that provided fixed tenure and parity with constitutional authorities. Since Information Commissions adjudicate disputes involving public authorities, greater executive discretion over their composition and service conditions raises concerns about institutional independence, federal balance and their ability to function without fear or favour.
These structural concerns are compounded by persistent vacancies that have weakened the operational capacity of Information Commissions. The Satark Nagrik Sangathan report notes that six State Information Commissions, including Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, remained non-functional for varying periods because of vacant posts, while several others functioned without a Chief Information Commissioner or with inadequate strength. As a result, citizens are often deprived of an effective appellate mechanism when information is denied, undermining grievance redressal and delaying the enforcement of their statutory rights.
The administrative consequences of these vacancies are reflected in the mounting backlog of appeals and complaints across the country. According to the SNS report, nearly four lakh RTI cases remain pending before Information Commissions, largely because of delayed appointments and understaffing. Karnataka alone reported 47,825 pending appeals and complaints during 2024-25. Such delays substantially reduce the practical value of the RTI Act, as information sought on public services, welfare entitlements or government accountability often loses its relevance by the time it is eventually disclosed.
Weak institutional enforcement has further undermined the RTI framework. Although Information Commissions have statutory powers to impose penalties on Public Information Officers (PIOs) for unjustified delays or denial of information, the SNS report found that penalties were not imposed in 98% of cases where they could have been levied. The absence of meaningful consequences has weakened the deterrent effect of the Act, encouraged procedural non-compliance and diluted administrative accountability.
This implementation deficit has also contributed to the growing invocation of exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. While these exemptions are intended to protect legitimate public interests such as national security and privacy, inadequate oversight has enabled their broader use to deny information. The reluctance of Information Commissions to effectively adjudicate appeals has aggravated the problem. For instance, the Maharashtra State Information Commission returned 23,509 appeals without passing substantive orders during 2024-25, raising questions about the effectiveness of the appellate process.
The cumulative effect of vacancies, inadequate staffing and mounting pendency has resulted in excessive delays in the disposal of RTI appeals. The SNS report estimates that, at the current rate of disposal, the Telangana State Information Commission would require nearly 29 years to clear appeals filed in 2025. Such prolonged delays effectively defeat the purpose of the Act because information disclosed years later rarely serves its intended purpose of ensuring timely public accountability.
There is an irony in this situation. Institutions established to uphold transparency have themselves become less transparent in their functioning. The SNS report notes that only seven Information Commissions have conducted public hearings, while several commissions continue to delay the publication of annual reports. Andhra Pradesh, for instance, has not published an annual report since 2017. This limits institutional transparency, weakens public oversight and ultimately erodes citizens’ confidence in the RTI regime.
Global best practices
1. Mexico: Mexico’s transparency system operates independently of the executive and covers federal agencies, political parties, unions and entities receiving public funds. Its National Transparency Platform holds 14 million records and can mandate disclosure without citizens approaching courts.
2. Sweden: Under the 1766 Freedom of the Press Act, almost all government records, including emails, memos and draft decisions, are public. Citizens need not give a reason for seeking information.
3. South Africa: The Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000, gives citizens a constitutional right to information held by the state and private entities, with a standard 30-day response period.
How can RTI be given its teeth?
1. Institutional independence: Make Information Commissions independent of executive control. Appoint the CIC and ICs through the President and Governors, provide a secure five-year tenure, and charge their salaries and allowances to the Consolidated Fund.
2. Wider definition: Amend Section 2 to include government-monitored trusts and private trusts substantially funded by public money within the definition of “public authority”.
3. Better appointments: Fill vacancies within three months and replace the Union Minister on the selection committee with the Chief Justice of India or a sitting Supreme Court judge. A Search Committee, as envisaged under the Lokpal Act, should ensure appointments based on merit, diversity and public experience.
4. Time-bound responses: Enforce a 30-day deadline at every stage, from the PIO’s response to the disposal of appeals.
5. Stronger monitoring: Create a National Coordination Committee, headed by the CIC and including State Information Commissions, to monitor performance and accountability. Zonal commissioners could provide additional oversight and an appellate mechanism.
6. Protect RTI users: Establish grievance cells at the district administration or Superintendent of Police level to protect RTI activists and officials facing intimidation.
7. Reward compliance: Recognise PIOs who proactively disclose information under Section 4 and respond promptly to RTI requests.
8. Build capacity: Make regular training mandatory for PIOs and link compliance to service records.
9. Improve access: Remove the requirement to state a reason for seeking information and make draft decisions and official emails accessible. A single-window system could also simplify RTI applications, while entities receiving public funds, including political parties, could be brought within its ambit.
RTI culture: Nurturing an informed citizenry
The Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a) should evolve from a governance mechanism into a “Democratic Cultural Mechanism”. This requires introducing the value of free information in school curricula and conducting regular RTI workshops, particularly in rural and marginalised communities. An informed citizenry can strengthen transparency, improve accountability and deepen democratic governance.
The future of RTI depends not only on preserving the legal right to information but also on restoring the autonomy of the institutions that protect it. Without independence and adequate capacity, transparency and accountability suffer. Timely reforms are essential to keep RTI an effective safeguard against opacity and restore public trust.
