it provided an institutionalised mechanism through Information Commissions,
both at the Central and State levels. Over the years, it has exposed corruption, revealed administrative inefficiencies, and empowered whistle-blowers. However, the recent developments point toward a systematic weakening of the law, both structurally and in spirit.

The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, is perhaps the most glaring example. By removing the fixed tenure and status parity of the Information Commissioners with Election Commissioners, and giving the Central Government the power to decide their salaries and terms of service, the independence of these quasi-judicial bodies has been severely compromised. The fear is no longer academic—it has translated into growing silence from commissions on contentious queries and a backlog of over 3 lakh cases nationwide, leaving citizens in a state of administrative limbo.

The continued delays in filling vacancies in Information Commissions, particularly the Chief Information Commissioner at the Central level, raise serious concerns. Courts have time and again intervened—most notably in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India—to emphasise the urgency of appointments, but the government’s inaction reveals an uncomfortable reluctance to empower oversight bodies.

Compounding this is the misuse of exemption clauses under Section 8 of the Act. While national security and privacy are legitimate grounds for denial, they are increasingly used as blanket shields. The government’s refusal to disclose details of the PM-CARES Fund, or the opaque operation of the electoral bond scheme, are stark examples. In both cases, requests for transparency were dismissed under the garb of confidentiality—even though public interest clearly outweighs concerns of privacy in such instances. These developments have led to growing distrust and frustration among RTI activists and common citizens alike.

Furthermore, as public-private partnerships and digitised governance expand, a significant chunk of governmental decision-making now occurs outside the traditional public domain. From algorithm-based welfare distribution to AI-led surveillance systems, many critical aspects of governance now evade the RTI framework. The Act, in its current form, is ill equipped to deal with this transformation. Without legislative or judicial clarity, the accountability of these hybrid systems remains largely unchecked.

Yet, all is not lost. The judiciary has shown promising signs of safeguarding transparency. In 2024, the Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, affirmed that transparency under the RTI Act includes not only disclosure of documents but also reasons behind public decisions. This aligns with a broader judicial view that transparency is integral to good governance and not merely a bureaucratic formality.

India, the world’s largest democracy, cannot afford to let its most potent transparency tool decay. The government must urgently act to restore the independence of Information Commissions, strengthen implementation of Section 4 (proactive disclosures), and expand the Act’s applicability to new-age governance models. RTI is not just about accessing files—it is about ensuring that power remains accountable, even when it operates behind closed doors.

As the political and administrative establishment increasingly shields itself from scrutiny, the citizen’s right to information must remain non-negotiable. In the battle between secrecy and democracy, it is ultimately transparency that sustains the republic.