20 Years of the RTI Act: Democracy’s Antidote to Orwellian Dystopia

The year 2025 will mark the completion of 20 years of the historical Right to Information Act, 2005. By reforming the British Official Secrets Act of 1923, the RTI Act paved the way for a more informed citizenry. The constitution of India has established a democratic republic. An informed and empowered citizenry is of utmost importance to preserve the paramountcy of the democratic principle.

Illustration by The Geostrata

The Act creates a foundation for accountability and openness in India's administrative system by institutionalising citizens' right to access information. It serves as a corrective mechanism against structural inefficiencies like excessive proceduralism and a lack of administrative responsiveness by formalising transparency and facilitating information-seeking.

ORWELLIAN DYSTOPIA

Imagine a world where the government controls all the information and acts under a veil of secrecy, the citizens are forbidden to question the state, and there is no transparency in the government’s actions and decision-making. While thinking of such a world, George Orwell’s magnum opus, ‘1984’, surely comes to mind. It showcases how secrecy and information control can enslave minds.

This dystopian future illustrates the threat of total government control and information privilege. In the absence of the possibility to struggle, citizens lose the opportunity for democratic participation. To the contrary, RTI Act has made verifiable information accessible and provides objectivity to the citizens.

PEOPLE'S ARDENT DESIRE FOR TRANSPARENCY

The Right to Information Act has turned into a powerful weapon for nurturing and consolidating participative democracy and a weapon against authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The legislation empowers the citizenry to ask for information from any public authority, promoting open government and accountability. It has made ‘transparency a rule and secrecy an exception.’

The RTI Act is rooted in grassroots movements and people’s ardent desire for a transparency framework amidst the rampant corruption that plagued India's rural development projects. In Rajasthan, together with political players, government officials embezzled money intended for public works projects, depriving rural labourers of their due pay. The Official Secrets Act, 1923 safeguarded these fraudulent actions, preventing the public from accessing official data. In response, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), led by Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, and Shankar Singh, organised rural workers and peasants who were not paid the minimum wage.

This struck a chord with those present at the meeting. They started calling for openness in how the government operated. This led to the establishment of "Jan Sunwais" (public hearings), which gave villages the opportunity to review government documents and provide testimony regarding the fulfilment of promised infrastructure and wages. It was one of MKSS's most significant innovations.

Deep-seated corruption was made clear by these hearings; infrastructure projects were either badly constructed or fabricated, and wages were not paid. Despite resistance, MKSS persisted by holding protests and sit-ins (dharnas), demanding access to public records. A key moment came with a massive sit-in at Beawar (Rajasthan), timed with national elections. It powerfully linked access to information with survival and dignity, under the slogan: “HUM JANENGE, HUM JIYENGE” (“The Right to Know, The Right to Live”).

After years of activism, the Rajasthan government was compelled to amend laws (like the Panchayati Raj Act) and eventually pass the statewide Right to Information law in Rajasthan in 2000. This grassroots movement laid the foundation for India's national RTI Act of 2005, empowering citizens to demand transparency and accountability in governance. RTI Act helped unearth many scams like the  2G scam and the Commonwealth scam. It was through RTI that the public was made aware that demonetisation was announced without the RBI’s nod.

AMENDMENT TO THE RTI ACT, 2005

Foucault famously argued, “ Knowledge is power,” which means that those who control discourse also have the power to shape reality. RTI yielded some of this power into the hands of the citizenry. Due to this very nature of RTI, almost all governments in power have attempted to dilute the act. The most recent amendment to the act was passed in 2019, generating a lot of controversy.

Section 2 j) of the RTI Act defines the “right to information” as the right to access information held by public authorities. The act designates Public Information Officers (PIOs) to operationalise this right, who are in charge of answering information requests. To guarantee a systematic redressal process, the applicant may appeal information that is rejected or inadequate, first to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and then to the Central or State Information Commission.

As per the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019, the Central and State Information Officers' tenures are now set by the central government rather than being fixed at five years. It also empowers the central government to make rules for its implementation. Further, Rule 21 appropriates to the central government the authority to establish any allowances or service conditions not covered by the 2019 Rules, making its resolutions binding and designating it as the final authority for interpreting these rules.

Image Credits: Rightful Owner

The government asserted that the emoluments and allowances for the Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commissioner, and Information Commissioners were analogous.  However, the Election Commission is mentioned in the constitution, whereas Information Commissions are statutory bodies; their authorisations differ, warranting a rationalisation of their status and service conditions.

Critics contend that these amendments weaken the fundamental right to information guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court has reiterated is necessary for the right to free speech and expression, as demonstrated in ‘The State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain" case. The amendments also give the Centre the authority to set the terms of service and tenure for Information Commissioners. This raises concerns that their independence may be eroding.

It has also been argued that the absence of public consultation prior to the implementation of these amendments violates transparency and contradicts the spirit of the law.

Additionally, the ICs have also been dealing with backlogs and holdups. As per Satark Nagrik Sangthan Report 2023-24, nearly 4 lakh petitions and complaints were pending, and 42 percent of them, received by the CIC, were returned.

IS THE RTI ACT STILL RELEVANT?

From a normative point of view, strengthening the RTI Act is vital to achieve Viksit Bharat@2047. To do so, the Information Commission must serve autonomously, and private entities performing public functions should also fall under the RTI’s ambit. The government should recognize RTI as a fundamental right rather than viewing it as an administrative accommodation.

The issue of backlogs also needs to be addressed. Enforcing the recommendations of the 2nd Administrative Reform Commission is vital for bettering the RTI Act and so is boosting public consciousness and promoting collaboration between the government and civil society.

To conclude, the implementation of the RTI Act has been momentous in fostering transparent governance, strengthening democracy over the past two decades. It not only revolutionised the interaction between the state and its citizens but also continues to serve as a democratic safeguard, making sure that governance is open to public scrutiny.

Its fundamental essence remains unaltered despite issues of bureaucratic opposition, slow replies, and recent revisions that raise questions about its dilution. It upholds the idea that the state must answer to the people and not the other way around.

BY SANSKRITI GAUR

COVERING PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com