Strengthening Transparency through RTI

RTI ensures transparency and accountability in governance; reviving it requires filling vacancies, protecting activists, and restoring commission autonomy.

Strengthening Transparency through RTI

Syllabus: Government policies and interventions for development and related implementation issues (UPSC GS II)

Introduction

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is a landmark democratic reform aimed at promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India highlighted the urgent need to revive and reinforce RTI, which has weakened over time.

Background of the RTI Act

Purpose and Vision

Ensures open governance and empowers citizens to access public information.
Enables an informed and participatory democracy.

Key Features

Public authorities must respond timely to RTI queries.
Information Commissions oversee compliance and can impose penalties for delays.

Impact

RTI has become a powerful tool against corruption and for ensuring responsible governance.

Supreme Court Observations

Vacancies and Backlogs

Eight posts vacant in the Central Information Commission (CIC); 23,000+ appeals pending.
Many State Information Commissions are dysfunctional or not accepting petitions.

Directive to Governments

Centre instructed to provide timelines for filling vacancies and clearing backlogs.

Criticism of Inaction

Court warned that without timely appointments, the purpose of RTI is compromised, highlighting government apathy.

Issues Weakening RTI

Institutional Gaps: Delays in appointments and rising pendency weaken credibility.
Non-Compliance & Risks: Departments delay or ignore queries; activists face harassment and threats.
Erosion of Independence: Amendments have reduced CIC autonomy; appointments often favour retired bureaucrats over diverse expertise.

Role of RTI in Democracy

Transparency & Oversight: Enables citizens to scrutinize government actions.
Anti-Corruption Tool: Exposes misuse of power and irregularities.
Strengthening Democracy: Promotes participatory governance and reduces opacity.

Global Best Practices

USA (FOIA, 1966): 20-day response, judicial review, annual reporting.
Brazil (2011): Fixed deadlines with penalties for officials.
Norway: Oversight includes academics and civil society.
Sweden: Citizen education through schools, media, and campaigns.

Lessons for India

Independent and empowered commissions (UK/Mexico).
Proactive data disclosure (Chile, New Zealand).
Strict deadlines and penalties (Brazil, USA).
Awareness campaigns (Sweden, South Africa).

Way Forward

Filling Vacancies: Transparent, merit-based appointments from diverse fields.
Enhancing Efficiency: Digitization and tracking mechanisms for RTI responses.
Safeguarding Activists: Strengthen Whistleblower Protection laws.
Restoring Autonomy: Reverse amendments that limit commission independence.
Awareness Campaigns: Educate citizens about RTI rights for better grassroots participation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention provides momentum to revitalize RTI.
However, sustained political and institutional commitment is essential.
Transparency is not just a legal right but a democratic obligation, and strengthening RTI is key to preserving India’s participatory governance ethos.