Economic Survey 2025-26 Advocates for Balanced Review of RTI Act to Preserve Governance Efficacy
The Economic Survey 2025-26 has put forth a significant proposal for a calibrated re-examination of India's Right to Information (RTI) Act. The survey underscores that while transparency is crucial, unchecked disclosure can potentially undermine effective governance by leaving insufficient room for candid internal deliberation among officials.
RTI Act: A Democratic Cornerstone with Governance Challenges
The survey acknowledges the RTI Act, 2005 as one of India's most powerful democratic reforms and a cornerstone of anti-corruption efforts. However, it argues that transparency should be viewed as a means to better governance rather than an end in itself. The document warns that "disclosure celebrated regardless of its contribution to governance" can weaken decision-making processes within the government.
Importantly, the survey does not recommend diluting the law's core intent. Instead, it advocates for refining the RTI's application in "narrowly defined areas of internal deliberation". Any re-examination must preserve the Act's role as a vital accountability instrument, ensuring it continues to empower citizens and combat corruption.
Addressing Misuse Concerns and Governance Friction
The survey's arguments echo long-standing concerns within the bureaucracy regarding the misuse of RTI. Issues highlighted include:
- Repetitive and voluminous information requests that overwhelm officials
- Strategic requests that slow administrative functioning
- Instances where RTI is used as a tool for harassment rather than public interest disclosure
Government data reveals a steady rise in RTI applications, with filings crossing 17.5 lakh in 2023-24 compared to 13.7 lakh in 2019-20. This growth indicates increasing citizen engagement but also amplifies concerns about administrative burden and potential misuse.
Several cases illustrate these challenges:
- In Hyderabad, 2025, police filed a complaint against a retired DSP accused of filing repeated RTI requests to harass serving officers, causing administrative disruption.
- The same year, Punjab's State Information Commission dismissed 24 RTI appeals as vexatious, warning against personal vendettas.
- The Central Information Commission condemned an applicant's 235 RTI filings, labeling misuse as a "weapon of vengeance."
- Earlier this month, the Odisha Information Commission ordered a bribery probe on a habitual RTI applicant.
The survey links these instances to broader concerns about decision-making becoming excessively risk-averse in an environment of real-time scrutiny, potentially stifling innovative governance approaches.
Learning from Global Comparisons
To strengthen its case, the survey examines international experiences with transparency laws:
- United States: Exempts inter-agency memoranda and internal personnel rules from disclosure
- Sweden: Protects fiscal and monetary policy discussions
- United Kingdom: Allows exemptions where disclosure may harm public interest, including ministerial veto powers
The survey notes that while India's RTI regime is among the most expansive globally, other democracies provide clearer exemptions for internal policy deliberations. It also cites former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's admission that unrestricted transparency made governance more challenging by constraining confidential discussions on complex issues.
Navigating a Delicate Balance
Despite these arguments, the survey's call for re-examination presents significant political and institutional challenges. The RTI Act has:
- Exposed corruption at various levels
- Improved service delivery mechanisms
- Empowered citizens, particularly at the local level
The survey frames the issue as one of 'institutional design' rather than intent, arguing that transparency works best when combined with protected space for learning, debate, and course correction within government structures.
Whether this position translates into legislative or administrative changes remains uncertain. For now, the government's message is clear: it seeks a difficult balance where citizens' right to information is protected while ensuring that fear of disclosure does not compromise sound policymaking and effective governance.
