From Right To Information (RTI) To Right To Ignorance: The Fading Spirit Of Accountability

When the Right to Information Act was enacted on October 12, 2005, India took a historic step toward democratic accountability. The law was born from a grassroots movement led by civil society champions like Aruna Roy and the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), who argued that transparency was not a privilege but a citizen’s right. For a while, it worked as intended. Public Information Officers were compelled to release records long buried in bureaucratic vaults, information commissions functioned as independent tribunals, and corruption was exposed across sectors. For millions of Indians, the RTI became the people’s weapon — cheap, quick, and effective.

A Promise Betrayed: The Rise of Apathy and Delay

Two decades later, that optimism has faded. The law, once hailed as India’s “sunshine legislation,” now lies battered by neglect, manipulation, and indifference. What began as a democratic revolution has been reduced to a mere formality. Across the Central and State Information Commissions, over four lakh appeals and complaints are pending. By mid-2024, the total backlog stood at 4, 05,000 — an alarming indicator of institutional decay. In several states such as Jharkhand, Telangana, Goa, and Tripura, commissions have remained headless for months or even years. Others are functionally paralysed. Some states would take two decades to clear their current caseloads at existing disposal rates — a mockery of the 30-day limit prescribed by law.

Political Design and Bureaucratic Evasion

This collapse is neither accidental nor inevitable. It is a calculated mix of bureaucratic inertia and political design. Vacancies in the Central Information Commission are allowed to persist; state governments starve their commissions of funds and staff. Appointment processes are opaque and dominated by the executive, eroding the independence of commissioners. What was conceived as a watchdog of governance has been converted into a toothless appendage.

Failure on the Ground: PIOs and Penalties

At the operational level, the rot is equally deep. Public Information Officers routinely ignore or delay responses. Many fail even to acknowledge applications within the 30-day period. Those who reply often provide evasive or incomplete information. The law empowers commissions to penalise errant officials, yet penalties are imposed in fewer than five percent of proven cases. Non-compliance has become the norm, while accountability is the exception. When enforcement collapses, citizens stop believing that the state can ever be transparent.

Legal and Legislative Assaults on Transparency

Legal interventions have further blunted the law’s edge. Successive amendments and judicial interpretations have widened exemptions under vague grounds such as “personal information” or “national security.” The 2019 amendment allowed the government to control the tenure and salaries of commissioners, striking at their autonomy. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act has blurred the line between privacy and public interest, allowing authorities to withhold information on the pretext of confidentiality. In the name of safeguarding privacy, transparency has become the casualty.

Administrative Paralysis and Digital Deficits

Meanwhile, administrative incapacity continues to cripple implementation. Many departments still rely on manual record-keeping, with files uncatalogued and poorly digitised. Online portals are slow, outdated, or non-functional. Postal delays add to the inefficiency. PIOs cite overwork and lack of training — excuses that only underscore institutional apathy. Even mandatory annual reports, meant to track performance, are skipped or delayed by years.

The Human Cost: Fear and Intimidation

The human cost of this erosion is tragic. Over a hundred RTI activists have been killed since 2005, and countless others have been assaulted or threatened. Most came from modest backgrounds, driven by a belief that information could bring justice. Their persecution sends a chilling message: silence is safer than inquiry. Fear has become another tool to weaken transparency.

Political Discomfort with Accountability

At its core, the decline of the RTI reflects a deeper malaise — the political class’s discomfort with accountability. Governments, whether at the Centre or in the states, instinctively prefer opacity. Information destabilises patronage networks, exposes irregular appointments, procurement scams, and misuse of public funds. When transparency begins to bite, the system responds by blunting the instrument. Political convenience, not public interest, guides the state’s approach. What is happening is not a frontal assault but a slow suffocation of democratic oversight.

Judicial Ambivalence and Institutional Weakness

Even judicial interpretation has been inconsistent. Some courts have valiantly upheld disclosure; others have expanded exemptions, creating confusion. Appeals are often dismissed on minor procedural grounds — a missing signature or wrong date — forcing citizens to restart the process. For an average applicant, the system has become a maze of obstacles designed to exhaust patience rather than deliver justice.

Grim Warnings from the Judiciary

The deepening crisis has now drawn warnings from the highest judicial quarters. Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur recently cautioned that, at the rate the Act is being diluted through unnecessary amendments and deliberate neglect, the RTI could face virtual extinction within five or six years. He noted that the persistent failure to appoint commissioners was part of a systematic effort to weaken the law — “kamzor karte karte logon ko appoint nahin kiya ja raha hai.” His warning is sobering: India’s most important democratic reform may not be repealed by Parliament but quietly buried under official apathy.

Vacancies and Institutional Breakdown

Across the country, vacancies have crippled the RTI architecture. Out of 165 sanctioned posts for Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners, over 40 remain vacant. Several states — Jharkhand, Tripura, Telangana, and Goa — have at times had no commissioners at all, leaving citizens without an appellate authority. Even the Central Information Commission functions below sanctioned strength. Major states such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, Odisha, and Uttarakhand struggle with incomplete benches, leading to years-long delays and mounting public frustration.

A Hollow System: Reports Ignored, Cases Unresolved

National performance assessments confirm the extent of the rot. More than four lakh cases remain unresolved, seven state commissions have been defunct at various points, and even active ones often return appeals on flimsy technicalities. Penalties are rarely imposed, proactive disclosures ignored, and annual reports unpublished. The combination of administrative neglect and political indifference has rendered commissions helpless, citizens disillusioned, and the law hollow.

Comparing Global Models of Transparency

In contrast, developed democracies such as the United States and the United Kingdom have nurtured stronger information regimes. The UK’s Freedom of Information Act, enforced by an independent Information Commissioner’s Office, mandates strict timelines and proactive publication of data. The US Freedom of Information Act binds federal agencies to release records within fixed deadlines, subject to limited exemptions. Both systems still face challenges of delay and redaction, but their institutions remain adequately staffed, transparent in functioning, and subject to continuous judicial and public scrutiny. The difference lies not in the text of their laws but in the political culture that respects transparency as integral to governance, not an irritant to it. 

The Way Forward: Reclaiming the Citizen’s Right to Know

Yet, all is not lost. The spirit that birthed the RTI still flickers. Grassroots groups continue to use it to monitor ration shops, panchayat spending, school funds, and welfare schemes. Some courts have reaffirmed the citizen’s right to know, and online portals — despite flaws — have expanded access. What is needed now is political will and administrative reform.
Appointments to information commissions must be transparent, time-bound, and insulated from executive interference. Penalty provisions should be enforced rigorously. Section 4’s mandate for proactive disclosure must be treated as a priority, not a formality. Whistle-blower protection must be revived, and attacks on RTI users fast-tracked by law.

A Law at Crossroads

The RTI’s future depends not just on institutions but on collective resolve. Twenty years after its birth, the law stands at a crossroads. It can either be revived through courage and reform, or fade into irrelevance under the weight of apathy. The irony is cruel — the very state that once proudly enacted this law now presides over its decay.
The RTI Act began as a beacon of hope, promising to cleanse governance through sunlight. Today, that light flickers, dimmed by bureaucratic shadows and political expediency. Yet even a flicker can be revived. To restore it is not merely to defend a statute — it is to reclaim democracy’s most essential truth: that citizens have the right to know what is done in their name.

(The writer is a senior political analyst and strategic affairs columnist based in Shimla)

Published on: Sunday, October 12, 2025, 08:53 AM IST