RTI Act Anniversary: Impact & Exemptions in India

RTI turns 21 with 3.85 lakh cases waiting Backlog

On the Act’s 21st anniversary, Satark Nagrik Sangathan’s Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India, 2025–26 found 3,85,716 appeals and complaints pending on 30 June 2026. Maharashtra’s commission had the largest backlog (77,397), followed by Chhattisgarh (52,559), Bihar (42,243), the Central Information Commission (39,121) and Tamil Nadu (37,150).

Commissions registered 2,61,669 cases in the year and disposed of 2,41,627, so the pile kept growing. Nine commissions returned 37,701 cases without a decision, mostly on procedural grounds; nearly 95% of those returned by the CIC were never re-filed. Jharkhand’s commission was defunct throughout the year and Himachal Pradesh’s since 3 July 2025.

Anniversary coverage also flagged weak proactive disclosure: only 1,446 of 2,303 central public authorities (62.7%) had submitted transparency audit reports to the CIC.

Supreme Court hearing: Centre given time to reply Court

At the latest reported hearing in the constitutional challenge to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and Rules, the Union government was given two weeks to file its reply. As of mid-October 2026, no final ruling on the amended Section 8(1)(j) had been reported, and the amendment remains in force.

Supreme Court issues notice, refuses a stay Court

Hearing petitions filed by RTI researcher Venkatesh Nayak, The Reporters Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre. It declined to suspend the amendment: ‘No question of stay. Through interim order, we will not introduce a regime which Parliament has thought of,’ Chief Justice Surya Kant said, adding that ‘some ironing out of the creases might be needed to strike a balance’.

The bench referred the core questions, including whether the new Section 8(1)(j) is compatible with the right to information under Article 19(1)(a), to a larger bench.

A full Central Information Commission for the first time in nine years Law

President Droupadi Murmu administered the oath to Raj Kumar Goyal, a former Secretary of the Department of Justice, as Chief Information Commissioner, after a selection committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommended him and eight Information Commissioners on 10 December. The appointments brought the CIC to its full sanctioned strength for the first time in about nine years.

Vacancies had been a recurring cause of delays. Even at full strength, the CIC’s pending cases rose by 9,378 between 1 January and 12 October 2026, according to anniversary reporting.

Personal-information exemption rewritten Amendment

When the Ministry of Electronics and IT notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, it brought into force, with immediate effect, the provisions creating the Data Protection Board and Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which substitutes a new Section 8(1)(j) in the RTI Act.

The old clause protected personal information only where it had no relationship to public activity or interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and it allowed disclosure where larger public interest justified it. The new clause exempts ‘information which relates to personal information’, without those tests. Transparency groups warned that records central to accountability, from beneficiary lists to officials’ conduct, could now be refused because they contain a name.

Government: the change ‘harmonises’ privacy and RTI Privacy

Responding to criticism in Parliament, IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said the amendment does not restrict the disclosure of personal information but balances privacy with the right to information. He pointed to Section 8(2), which still allows any exempt information to be released if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm. Opposition MPs, media bodies and former information commissioners called for the amendment to be repealed.

Electoral bonds struck down on voters’ right to know Court

The Supreme Court struck down the electoral bond scheme, holding that voters’ right to information about political funding is part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The ruling was not an RTI Act case, but it reaffirmed the constitutional basis on which the RTI Act rests: an informed citizenry is essential to democracy.

DPDP Act passed, with a clause amending RTI Privacy

Parliament passed India’s first comprehensive data-protection law. Tucked into its final chapter, Section 44(3) rewrote the RTI Act’s personal-information exemption. Campaigners objected immediately, arguing that the change had been introduced without adequate consultation and would let authorities refuse information about how public servants exercise power.

The Chief Justice’s office comes under RTI Court

A Constitution Bench held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a ‘public authority’ under the Act. The court said information such as judges’ asset declarations could be disclosed, but each request had to be weighed against privacy and judicial independence, applying the public-interest test that the old Section 8(1)(j) contained.

Parliament amends commissioners’ tenure and pay Amendment

The original Act fixed a five-year term (up to age 65) for Information Commissioners, with salaries equal to those of the Election Commission. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019, passed in July, let the Central Government set tenure, salaries and conditions by rules for both central and state commissioners. Rules notified on 24 October 2019 cut terms to three years.

The government called it a correction of anomalies. Critics, including former information commissioners, said that making commissioners’ terms and pay depend on the executive weakened the independence of bodies that order the executive to disclose.

Supreme Court orders timely appointments Court

Ruling on a petition by RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra and Amrita Johri, the Supreme Court directed the Centre and states to fill vacancies in Information Commissions in a transparent and timely manner. It warned that without commissioners, the right to information becomes ineffective. Compliance has been the subject of repeated follow-up hearings since.

Privacy declared a fundamental right Privacy

A nine-judge bench unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment led directly to the data-protection law, and its reasoning sits behind the government’s argument that personal data held by the state deserves stronger protection, including against RTI requests.

Political parties declared public authorities Impact

Acting on complaints by the Association for Democratic Reforms and activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, a full bench of the Central Information Commission ruled that six national parties, given land and other benefits by government, were public authorities that must appoint PIOs. None complied. A bill to override the order lapsed, and the question has since been before the Supreme Court.

Courts draw the boundaries Court

The courts and the government defined the edges of the right. In CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court held that students can inspect their evaluated answer sheets. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v CIC (2012), it held that an employee’s service record, disciplinary proceedings and assets were personal information, exempt unless larger public interest was shown. Meanwhile, the Centre added the CBI to the list of organisations largely excluded under Section 24.

RTI exposes scandals, and activists pay a price Impact

Records obtained under RTI helped expose how the Adarsh Housing Society in Mumbai, meant for war widows and veterans, obtained land and clearances, one of several high-profile cases built on documents rather than allegations alone. The same year, Gujarat RTI activist Amit Jethwa, who had used the law to challenge illegal mining near the Gir forest, was shot dead outside the Gujarat High Court. Dozens of RTI users have been killed since 2005, and the Whistle Blowers Protection Act passed in 2014 has still not been brought into force.

One year on, and a fight over file notings Impact

Within months, citizens were filing applications on ration cards, pensions, roads and recruitment. In mid-2006 the government proposed an amendment to keep ‘file notings’ (officials’ internal comments on files) out of the Act. After protests by campaigners, including a fast by Anna Hazare, the proposal was shelved. At the first-anniversary convention, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was welcomed by the first Chief Information Commissioner, Wajahat Habibullah.

The RTI Act comes fully into force Law

The Act applied to all public authorities of the Centre and the states (Jammu and Kashmir, then under its own 2004 law, was added in 2019). Any citizen could now ask for any record, document, email, file noting, sample or data held by a public authority, without giving a reason, and expect a reply within 30 days.

Presidential assent Law

Introduced in December 2004 and substantially strengthened after recommendations from the National Advisory Council and campaigners, the Right to Information Bill passed both houses in May 2005 and received the President’s assent on 15 June. Its 120-day lead time let authorities designate information officers before the main provisions took effect.

A weak first law that never came into force Law

Parliament passed the Freedom of Information Act in December 2002, but it had no penalties, no independent appeals body and broad exemptions, and the government never notified it. In parallel, Supreme Court rulings in Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) and PUCL v Union of India (2003) required election candidates to disclose criminal, financial and educational backgrounds, grounding a voter’s right to know in Article 19(1)(a).

States go first Movement

Before a national law existed, several states passed their own right-to-information laws. They varied widely in strength, and Maharashtra’s 2002 version, revised in 2003 after a hunger strike by Anna Hazare, became one of the models for the central Act.

The Beawar dharna and a national campaign Movement

In April–May 1996, the MKSS held a 40-day sit-in in the market town of Beawar demanding the right to inspect and copy local government records. The slogan ‘our money, our accounts’ captured the idea. The same year, journalists, lawyers, retired officials and activists formed the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, which drafted model legislation.

Public hearings in Rajasthan’s villages Movement

The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan began by organising workers who were not paid minimum wages on government famine-relief works. To prove fraud, it needed muster rolls and bills. From December 1994 it held jan sunwais, village public hearings where official records, obtained with difficulty, were read aloud, and residents testified about ‘ghost’ workers and works never built.

The right to know enters constitutional law Court

Long before any statute, the Supreme Court said citizens have a right to know about public acts. In Raj Narain (1975), it held that the people have a right to know every public act done in a public way by their functionaries. In the 1981 S.P. Gupta judges’ case, it said disclosure should be the rule and secrecy the exception. These rulings later anchored the argument that RTI is a fundamental right, not a gift of legislation.