WHEN India enacted the Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2005, it marked a watershed moment in democratic governance. Born out of grassroots struggles led by ordinary citizens—particularly rural workers demanding transparency in wage payments—the law shifted the balance of power, however modestly, from the state to the people. It allowed citizens to question authority, expose corruption, and assert their right to know how they were being governed. When the right to know is weakened, democracy itself begins to recede
Two decades later, that transformative law stands dangerously weakened — not through outright repeal, but through a steady and deliberate process of erosion.
There is no dramatic announcement declaring the end of RTI. Instead, its dismantling is unfolding quietly through legislative dilution, institutional weakening, administrative resistance, and a growing culture of secrecy. What was once a robust instrument of accountability is increasingly being reduced to a procedural formality—where information is denied, delayed, or diluted beyond usefulness.
Privacy as Pretext
One of the most significant threats to the RTI framework today arises from the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. While the protection of personal data is both necessary and overdue in a digital age, its interface with the RTI Act has raised serious concerns among transparency advocates.
The DPDP Act amends Section 8 of the RTI Act, broadening the exemption for “personal information.” Earlier, the law required a balancing test: even if information was personal, it could be disclosed if a larger public interest justified it. This crucial safeguard ensured that transparency was not sacrificed at the altar of privacy.
That balance has now been fundamentally altered. Public authorities can invoke privacy more broadly and, in practice, more arbitrarily, to deny information. This creates what activists describe as a “blanket exemption”—one that can be used to shield details about public officials, beneficiaries of government schemes, or decisions taken in the exercise of public power. This shift is not merely technical. It represents a deeper philosophical departure — from transparency as a democratic right to secrecy as administrative convenience.
Taming the Watchdog
Equally troubling is the weakening of the institutions meant to uphold the RTI regime. The 2019 amendments to the RTI Act fundamentally altered the status of the Central and State Information Commissions. By granting the central government the power to determine the tenure, salaries, and service conditions of Information Commissioners, these amendments eroded the structural independence that once insulated them from executive pressure.
Previously, these commissions functioned with a degree of autonomy comparable to constitutional bodies like the Election Commission. Today, their dependence on the executive raises serious concerns about impartiality. An oversight body that relies on the government for its terms of service cannot be expected to robustly challenge that same government. The result is predictable: a gradual softening of enforcement, a reluctance to confront non-compliance, and an overall weakening of the law’s deterrent power.
Justice Delayed, Information Denied
Even where the law remains intact, its implementation is faltering under the weight of systemic neglect.
As of 2024, more than 400,000 RTI appeals and complaints are pending across India’s information commissions, according to data compiled by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan, a citizens’ group working to promote transparency and accountability in government functioning. Several commissions are operating with significant vacancies, including at senior levels, severely limiting their ability to function effectively.
For citizens seeking time-sensitive information—on land disputes, welfare entitlements, or administrative decisions—such delays render the law meaningless. An RTI response that arrives after years of waiting is not transparency; it is bureaucratic evasion.
What is Being Lost?
To understand what is at stake, one must recall how powerful the RTI Act has been when allowed to function.
In the early years of its implementation, activists in Rajasthan—many associated with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)—used RTI applications to uncover massive irregularities in public works programmes. By accessing muster rolls and payment records, they exposed how funds meant for rural labourers were siphoned off through fake entries and ghost workers.
These disclosures led to public hearings, recovery of misappropriated funds, and greater scrutiny of local governance. More importantly, they demonstrated that transparency was not an abstract ideal—it had tangible consequences for justice and livelihood.
It is precisely this power—to expose, to question, and to hold authority accountable—that is now being systematically weakened.
The Culture of RTI Phobia
Alongside legal and institutional challenges, a more subtle but equally corrosive shift is taking place within the bureaucracy.
RTI applicants are increasingly viewed not as participants in democracy but as nuisances—or worse, as threats. Officials often label frequent applicants as “habitual complainants” or “blackmailers,” fostering an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility.
This phenomenon, sometimes described as “RTI-phobia,” has real consequences. Applications are more likely to be rejected, queries are interpreted narrowly, and bureaucrats adopt a defensive posture that prioritises self-protection over public accountability.
The citizen, in effect, is recast as an adversary. Such a transformation undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, which was designed to empower individuals—not intimidate them.
The Vanishing Deterrent
The RTI Act includes provisions for penalising officials who fail to provide information without reasonable cause. These provisions were intended to ensure compliance and deter arbitrary denial.
In practice, however, they are rarely enforced. The Central Information Commission (CIC), which has the authority to impose fines, has shown increasing reluctance to penalise errant officials. This failure to act has emboldened non-compliance, allowing public authorities to ignore RTI requests with minimal consequences.
At the same time, rejection rates have risen. Studies indicate that a significant number of RTI denials do not cite valid legal exemptions, reflecting a pattern of arbitrary decision-making. Without enforcement, the law loses its teeth. And without consequences, opacity becomes the norm.
A Warning from the Judiciary
The cumulative effect of these developments has prompted serious concern from within the legal community. Former Supreme Court judge Madan B Lokur has warned that the RTI framework could be effectively dismantled within the next five to six years if current trends continue.
This is not a prediction of formal repeal, but of functional collapse. A law need not be abolished to become irrelevant. It only needs to be ignored, weakened, and rendered ineffective.
What Is at Stake: Democracy Itself
The erosion of the RTI Act is not an isolated policy issue – it is a fundamental challenge to democratic governance. Transparency is the foundation of accountability. Without access to information, citizens cannot question authority, journalists cannot investigate wrongdoing, and civil society cannot hold institutions to account. Corruption thrives in secrecy, and power consolidates in darkness.
In this context, the weakening of RTI signals a broader shift in governance—from openness to opacity, from participation to control. It raises a troubling question: what kind of democracy fears its own citizens knowing too much?
Democracy in the Dark
The gradual erosion of the Right to Information Act is a warning sign – one that extends far beyond the law itself. A democracy that restricts access to information is a democracy that fears accountability. And a democracy that fears accountability risks losing its constitutional soul.
If the RTI is allowed to fade into irrelevance, it will not just be a law that is lost. It will be a fundamental right – hard-won through struggle – quietly erased from public life. And, in that silence, democracy itself will grow dim.
A Legacy at Risk
The gradual erosion of the Right to Information Act is a warning sign – one that extends far beyond the law itself. It also stands in stark contrast to the constitutional vision articulated by P N Bhagwati, who, through a series of landmark judgments, laid the foundation for the right to information as an intrinsic part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Long before RTI became statutory law, it was judicially nurtured as a democratic necessity—an essential condition for informed citizenship and accountable governance.
To weaken RTI today is not merely to dilute a piece of legislation; it is to depart from that constitutional promise. If the current trajectory continues, India risks undoing decades of progressive jurisprudence that recognised transparency as the cornerstone of democracy. The right to know, once affirmed as fundamental, may survive in principle – but fade in practice.
And when that happens, it will not just be a law that is lost. It will be a legacy betrayed – and a democracy dimmed by the very shadows it once sought to dispel.
——————
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion Indiadoes not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
