The phrase "The RTI is dead, long live the RTI" captures the current paradox facing India's Right to Information (RTI) Act as it marks its 20th anniversary. While the RTI Act once revolutionized transparency and citizen empowerment, recent legislative changes—especially the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) and amendments since 2019—have severely diluted its original power and reach, leaving its spirit under threat despite its continued formal existence.

Historical Background of RTI

Evolution in India

• Constitutional Foundations: The right to information in India stems from Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court, in the landmark Raj Narain vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1976) case, declared that the right to know is a facet of the right to free speech.​
• Grassroots Movements: The movement gained momentum in the 1990s with the efforts of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan, led by activists such as Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey, who championed transparency in public works and governance.​
• State-Level Reforms: Before the national law was enacted, several Indian states like Tamil Nadu (1996), Goa (1997), and Maharashtra (2002) introduced their own RTI legislations, paving the way for broader national reforms.

The Right to Information Act, 2005

• Legislation: The Right to Information Bill was introduced in Parliament in December 2004 and passed in May 2005. It received presidential assent on June 15, 2005, and came into full effect on October 12, 2005.
• Core features: The 2005 Act provided a strong legal framework for citizens to request information from public authorities, promoting transparency and holding the government accountable. It also relaxed the strict information control imposed by the Official Secrets Act, 1923

Threats from Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023 poses significant threats to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, primarily through amendments that restrict the disclosure of personal information — undermining transparency and public accountability.
Core Legal Conflict
The tension arises from Section 44(3) of the DPDPA, which alters Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The earlier RTI provision allowed access to personal data if its disclosure was justified by public interest — a safeguard that balanced privacy and transparency. The DPDPA removes this “public interest” override, turning personal information into a blanket exemption from disclosure.​

Key Threats to Transparency

1. Erosion of the “Public Interest Test”
   Earlier, Public Information Officers could assess whether disclosure of information — such as salary, assets, or misconduct of a public servant — served a greater public purpose. The DPDPA eliminates this discretion, enabling automatic denials of such information.​
2. Vague Definition of “Personal Information”
   The DPDPA’s broad terminology allows any data referencing an individual to be withheld, even if it concerns publicly funded projects, contracts, or beneficiaries of welfare schemes. This creates an administrative shield against accountability and corruption exposure.​
3. Curtailment of Journalistic and Whistleblower Activity
   Investigative journalists and RTI activists often rely on personal data — like names, job details, or procurement records — to reveal corruption. The new amendments deprive them of crucial evidence, weakening public scrutiny mechanisms.​
4. Potential for Misuse by Public Authorities
   Officials can now cite “privacy” as a defense against sharing information, even in cases involving abuse of office or fund misappropriation. Critics argue this leads to reduced transparency in governance and less citizen oversight.​

 Summary Table: Conflict Overview

Aspect	RTI Act (2005)	DPDPA (2023) Amendment	Impact
Legal Clause	Section 8(1)(j): Allows disclosure of personal data if in “public interest.” ​	Section 44(3): Deletes “public interest” clause. ​	Restricts disclosure severely.
Guiding Principle	Transparency and citizen empowerment. ​	Privacy and data protection priority. ​	Shifts power balance toward secrecy.
Affected Stakeholders	Citizens, journalists, NGOs. ​	Government departments, data controllers. ​	Limits public scrutiny of governance.
Outcome	Enabled corruption exposure and accountability. ​	Facilitates denial of information requests. ​	Weakens democratic oversight.

 
Mechanisms Weakening RTI

Legislative mechanisms

• RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019: This amendment gave the central government the power to unilaterally decide the tenure, salaries, and service conditions of Information Commissioners at both the central and state levels. This shift is widely seen as undermining the independence and autonomy of these quasi-judicial bodies, potentially making commissioners wary of ruling against the government.
• Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023: Passed in August 2023, the DPDP Act amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to create a blanket exemption for "personal information".
• Removes public interest override: The original provision allowed for the disclosure of personal information if there was a larger public interest. The amendment removes this critical safeguard, enabling the denial of information even if it concerns corruption or misconduct by public officials.
• Restricts access to crucial data: Critics fear this change will be used to deny access to information on public servant assets, loan defaulters, electoral bond purchasers, and details of decision-making officials. 

Institutional and administrative mechanisms

• Persistent vacancies in Information Commissions: A chronic shortage of Information Commissioners at both the Central and State levels is causing massive backlogs of appeals and complaints. In October 2024, a report noted over 4 lakh pending cases across India's commissions, with some commissions being completely defunct due to a lack of appointments. Delays of over a year to hear appeals are now common.
• Bureaucratic resistance and denial of information: Public authorities frequently employ delaying tactics or reject RTI applications using vague or arbitrary interpretations of exemptions. Reports indicate a rising number of rejections from the Prime Minister's Office and other key ministries.
• Weak enforcement of penalties: Penal provisions for officials who deliberately delay or deny information are rarely enforced. This lack of consequence normalizes opacity and non-compliance.
• "No Data Available" responses: On many key issues, including COVID-19 deaths due to lack of oxygen and details on electoral bonds, the government has repeatedly claimed to have no data. This strategy effectively dodges public scrutiny and renders the RTI tool useless in such cases.
• Poor implementation of proactive disclosures: While Section 4 of the RTI Act mandates the proactive, online disclosure of information, bureaucratic inertia has hindered its effective implementation. 

Threat to activists

• Harassment and attacks on RTI users: Information seekers and whistleblowers face significant threats, including harassment, intimidation, physical violence, and murder. Reports indicate that close to 100 RTI activists have been killed since the Act's inception, creating a climate of fear that discourages citizens from using the law.
• Poorly implemented Whistleblower Protection Act: The Whistleblowers Protection Act of 2014, intended to safeguard activists, has not been effectively implemented, offering little practical security. 

Other factors

• Low public awareness: A significant portion of the population, particularly in rural areas, remains unaware of their RTI rights, leading to its underutilization.
• Judicial rulings: In some instances, court rulings have been interpreted as legitimizing governmental reluctance to disclose information by warning against "indiscriminate and impractical demands" for information. 

Way Forward

1. Restore Autonomy of Information Commissions
   Reverse the 2019 amendments to ensure independence and protection from executive control, modeled on global best practices like those in the UK and Mexico.​
2. Fill Vacancies and Improve Efficiency
   Appoint commissioners promptly through a merit-based, transparent process. Digitize records and RTI processing to reduce delays and ease access for citizens.​
3. Reform DPDP-RTI Interface
   Repeal or modify Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act to retain the public interest override in personal data disclosure under RTI.​
4. Protection for RTI Users
   Enforce the Whistleblower Protection Act, establish helplines, and create fast-track courts for cases involving harassment or violence against activists.​
5. Promote Proactive Disclosure
   Fully implement Section 4 of the RTI Act by mandating regular publication of key public data to reduce overdependence on individual RTI applications.​
6. Citizen Awareness and Capacity Building
   Conduct nationwide RTI awareness campaigns and strengthen training for Public Information Officers to ensure compliance and public participation.​

Conclusion

While the RTI Act remains a pillar of participatory democracy, it currently faces an existential crisis due to erosion of autonomy, restrictive amendments, and bureaucratic apathy. Reviving its original spirit demands legislative restoration, institutional reform, and societal vigilance. Empowering citizens through transparency is not a matter of administrative convenience but a constitutional necessity for a responsive and accountable government.
 

Download Pdf