WhatsApp Channel Join Now
Telegram Group Join Now
Relevance: GS-II (Polity & Governance) | Source: The Hindu
The Context: As the Right to Information (RTI) Act turns 21 years old in 2026, it faces a massive structural failure. The law was originally designed so that citizens would rarely have to file formal applications because the government would proactively put all basic information online. Instead, government departments are increasingly hiding this data, forcing citizens into a massive, backlogged legal queue just to get simple answers.
1. The Golden Rule: “Tell Them First” (Suo Motu Disclosure)
The RTI Act was built on a very simple philosophy: public information belongs to the public, so put it on the website before anyone even has to ask for it.
- Section 4(1)(b): This is the most crucial part of the RTI Act. It legally forces every government office to proactively (suo motu) publish basic details online—like staff contact numbers, daily operations, and where budget money is being spent.
- The Transparency Audits: To make sure departments are actually doing this, the government made it mandatory for them to hire independent auditors to check their websites and submit a “transparency report card” to the Central Information Commission (CIC) every year.
2. The Reality: Failing the Transparency Test
The latest 2024-25 data from the CIC reveals that government departments are blatantly ignoring these rules.
- Missing Reports: Out of the 2,303 registered public authorities, nearly 37% completely ignored the law and failed to submit their mandatory transparency audits.
- Terrible Scores & Blank Websites: Even among the departments that did submit reports, more than half scored a Grade C or worse. Independent checks found that major ministries—like the Ministry of Social Justice—had absolutely zero mandatory RTI information uploaded on their websites.
3. The Domino Effect: A Crushed System
What happens when the government doesn’t put basic information online? Citizens are forced to file formal legal applications to get it.
- Spiralling Pendency: Because of this voluntary silence by departments, the grievance system is completely overwhelmed. In 2024-25 alone, the system had to handle roughly 23 lakh RTI requests, with over 5.1 lakh cases left pending from the previous year. The system is choking on applications that shouldn’t have been needed in the first place.
Practice MCQ
Q. Consider the following statements regarding the Right to Information (RTI) Act and related frameworks:
- Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act mandates public authorities to proactively disclose certain categories of information to the public at regular intervals without requiring a formal request.
- The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, amended the RTI Act to ensure that all personal information of public officials is mandatorily published online to increase accountability.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: (a) 1 only
Hint: Statement 1 is correct; this is the core of suo motu disclosure. Statement 2 is completely incorrect because the DPDP Act actually amended the RTI Act (Section 8(1)(j)) to do the exact opposite—it created a blanket exemption that prevents “personal information” from being disclosed, raising fears that it will be used to hide public records.
Hint: Statement 1 is correct; this is the core of suo motu disclosure. Statement 2 is completely incorrect because the DPDP Act actually amended the RTI Act (Section 8(1)(j)) to do the exact opposite—it created a blanket exemption that prevents “personal information” from being disclosed, raising fears that it will be used to hide public records.
Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success
Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.