Introduction

The Right to Information (RTI) Act stands as one of India’s most transformative democratic tools, aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability, and active citizen participation. Recently, the Supreme Court of India has underscored the urgent necessity to revitalise and reinforce the RTI framework, which has progressively weakened, diminishing its role as a watchdog mechanism in governance.

Background of the RTI Act

·       Purpose and Vision: Enacted in 2005, the RTI Act was introduced to usher in an era of open governance. It envisioned an empowered citizenry capable of holding the government accountable by accessing information about public functions and decisions. At its core, the legislation aimed to deepen democratic engagement by ensuring transparency in administrative processes.

·       Key Features: The RTI Act mandates public authorities to provide prompt and timely responses to queries filed by citizens. It also institutionalised oversight through the creation of Information Commissions at both central and state levels. Importantly, the Act prescribes penalties for unjustified delays or failures in providing requested information, thereby fostering compliance.

·       Impact: Since its implementation, the RTI framework has become a powerful weapon in the fight against corruption and administrative arbitrariness. By exposing irregularities and empowering citizens to demand accountability, it has played a vital role in promoting responsible governance across sectors.

Supreme Court’s Observations

·       Vacancies and Backlogs: The Supreme Court recently highlighted critical deficiencies plaguing the Central Information Commission (CIC), noting that eight positions of Information Commissioners remain unfilled. Simultaneously, the backlog of unresolved appeals has surged beyond 23,000. Several state-level commissions are similarly paralysed, either dysfunctional or refusing to entertain new appeals.

·       Directives to the Government: The Court directed the central government to submit an affidavit detailing a specific timeline for filling all existing vacancies. It stressed the need for swift and transparent appointments, asserting that delay in constituting functional commissions severely undermines the efficacy of the RTI framework.

·       Criticism of Government Apathy: The Supreme Court strongly criticised the prevailing inaction, warning that the continued neglect of institutional vacancies renders the entire RTI mechanism ineffective. Without fully functioning oversight bodies, the statutory rights guaranteed under the Act become practically meaningless.

Issues Undermining the RTI Framework

·       Institutional Gaps: A major concern is the persistent delay in filling key vacancies in Information Commissions, leading to mounting case backlogs. This erodes the credibility of the RTI mechanism and discourages public engagement.

·       Non-Compliance and Threats to Activists: Government departments frequently delay or ignore RTI requests. Moreover, many RTI activists face harassment, threats, and even physical violence, which serves as a deterrent to information-seeking and undermines the spirit of the law.

·       Loss of Institutional Independence: Recent amendments have significantly diluted the autonomy of the CIC and its counterparts, weakening their ability to function independently. Appointments are increasingly dominated by retired bureaucrats, sidelining candidates from civil society, academia, and legal backgrounds who could bring diverse perspectives and greater independence.

Role of RTI in a Democratic Society

The RTI Act embodies the principles of transparency and citizen oversight in a democracy. It enables individuals to monitor government functioning, making it a powerful tool to combat corruption and misuse of authority. By promoting open access to information, the Act reinforces the participatory nature of governance and helps bridge the gap between the state and its citizens.

Global Best Practices and Lessons for India

Countries across the world offer successful models of information laws and institutional frameworks that India can learn from.

• The United States’ Freedom of Information Act (1966) enforces a strict 20-day response period and allows for judicial review of denials.
• Brazil’s Access to Information Law (2011) mandates fixed timelines for response (5–20 days) and penalises non-compliant officials.
• Norway ensures diversity in its oversight bodies by including civil society members and academics.
• Sweden promotes awareness of transparency laws through public campaigns and educational programs in schools.
• In the United States, annual FOIA reports ensure that data on requests and responses are publicly available, enhancing institutional accountability.

From these models, India can adopt a number of improvements:

• Establish more autonomous and representative information commissions, as seen in the UK and Mexico.
• Promote proactive disclosure of essential data, following the examples of Chile and New Zealand.
• Enforce strict deadlines and apply meaningful penalties for delays, similar to Brazil and the US.
• Launch public awareness drives, as practiced effectively in Sweden and South Africa, to encourage wider use of RTI.

Way Forward

To revitalise the RTI framework, a comprehensive reform agenda is essential:

• Filling Vacancies: The government must expedite transparent and merit-based appointments to Information Commissions, ensuring representation from legal, journalistic, academic, and civil society backgrounds.
• Improving Efficiency: There should be full digitisation of the RTI filing and tracking process. Strong technological tools must be adopted to monitor processing times and prevent delays.
• Protecting Activists: Activists require legal safeguards. The enactment and enforcement of comprehensive Whistleblower Protection laws is necessary to shield them from intimidation and violence.
• Restoring Autonomy: Amendments that have compromised the independence of Information Commissions should be revisited and reversed to re-establish their credibility and functional integrity.
• Expanding Awareness: Citizens must be made aware of their RTI rights through sustained public outreach and education. Grassroots campaigns can enhance local engagement and participation.

Conclusion

The recent intervention by the Supreme Court presents an opportunity to breathe new life into India’s RTI regime. However, long-term progress hinges on committed political will and robust institutional reform. Transparency is not merely a statutory entitlement; it is a cornerstone of democracy. Revitalising the RTI framework is essential for preserving India’s participatory character and ensuring that governance remains accountable to the people it serves.