The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), which came into force on 12 October 2005, is widely regarded as the single most important piece of transparency legislation in India's post-independence history. The Act operationalises the fundamental right to information, which the Supreme Court has read into Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution — the right to freedom of speech and expression necessarily includes the right to receive information. The RTI Act was the culmination of a sustained grassroots movement led by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan and supported by civil society organisations across the country. It replaced the toothless Freedom of Information Act, 2002, with a robust framework that empowers every citizen to demand information from public authorities and hold the State accountable.
Scope and Coverage — Who Can File and Against Whom: Any citizen of India can file an RTI application. The Act covers all "public authorities" as defined under Section 2(h), which includes any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution, or by any law made by Parliament or a state legislature, or by notification issued by the appropriate government. This encompasses government departments at the central and state level, public sector undertakings, local bodies like panchayats and municipalities, and any body owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government. Notably, the RTI Act also covers NGOs that are substantially financed directly or indirectly by government funds. The Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) held that even the RBI is subject to RTI and cannot hide behind a veil of confidentiality when the larger public interest demands disclosure.
How to File an RTI Application — A Practical Guide: Filing an RTI application is remarkably simple by design. Write an application in English, Hindi, or the official language of the area, addressed to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned public authority. You need not give any reason for seeking the information — Section 6(2) explicitly states that an applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any personal details except what may be necessary for contacting the applicant. Pay the prescribed fee — at the central level, this is Rs. 10 per application (no fee for Below Poverty Line applicants). The application can be submitted in person, by post, or electronically through the RTI Online Portal (rtionline.gov.in) for central government departments. The PIO is then required under Section 7(1) to provide the information within thirty days of receipt, or within forty-eight hours if it concerns the life or liberty of a person. If the information relates to a third party, the time limit is extended to forty days. If the PIO fails to respond within the prescribed period, it is deemed a refusal under Section 7(2).
Appeals and Penalties — Sections 18 to 20: The RTI Act establishes a two-tier appeal mechanism. The First Appeal lies to an officer senior in rank to the PIO within the same public authority, and must be filed within thirty days of the expiry of the time limit or receipt of the PIO's response. The Senior Officer must dispose of the First Appeal within thirty to forty-five days. If dissatisfied with the First Appeal decision, or if no decision is received, a Second Appeal can be filed before the Central Information Commission (for central government bodies) or the State Information Commission (for state government bodies) within ninety days. Section 20 prescribes penalties for PIOs who fail to comply — the Information Commission can impose a penalty of Rs. 250 per day, up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000, on a PIO who has without reasonable cause refused to accept an application, delayed providing information, or knowingly given incorrect or incomplete information. The Commission can also recommend disciplinary action against the errant PIO.
Exemptions — Section 8: Not all information is subject to disclosure. Section 8(1) lists ten categories of information exempt from disclosure, including information affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India (Section 8(1)(a)), information expressly forbidden by any court or tribunal (Section 8(1)(b)), information that would cause breach of parliamentary privilege (Section 8(1)(c)), trade secrets or intellectual property (Section 8(1)(d)), information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship (Section 8(1)(e)), information received in confidence from a foreign government (Section 8(1)(f)), information that would endanger the safety of any person (Section 8(1)(g)), and information that would impede the process of investigation or prosecution (Section 8(1)(h)). However, Section 8(2) provides an overriding public interest test — information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any citizen. Further, under Section 8(3), information relating to an allegation of corruption or human rights violation cannot be refused.
Landmark RTI Cases: The RTI Act has been wielded by ordinary citizens to unearth corruption, demand accountability, and bring about systemic change. In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court upheld the right of examinees to obtain copies of their evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, striking down the CBSE's blanket denial. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission (2013), however, the Court held that personal information of public servants, such as income tax returns, is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless it serves a larger public interest. The RTI has been used to expose scams in the allocation of 2G spectrum licences, irregularities in the Adarsh Housing Society, misuse of MPLADS funds, and deficiencies in public distribution systems across states. Aruna Roy, one of the driving forces behind the RTI movement, has described it as the "master key" to good governance.
The RTI Amendment Act, 2019 — A Controversial Change: The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019, amended Sections 13, 16, and 27 of the original Act to give the Central Government the power to fix the tenure, salary, and conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at both the central and state levels. Prior to the amendment, the tenure was fixed by the statute at five years (or till the age of 65 for central and 60 for state commissioners), and the salary was pegged to that of the Chief Election Commissioner (for the CIC) and Election Commissioners (for ICs). Critics argued that this change undermined the independence of Information Commissions by making their terms of service subject to executive discretion. Supporters maintained it was an administrative rationalisation. This debate remains ongoing.
Using RTI Effectively — Tips from Law Forum India: Based on our experience conducting RTI awareness camps across Bengaluru and Karnataka, we offer these practical tips: be specific in your questions — vague requests lead to vague responses or rejections; request information rather than opinions or interpretations — the Act covers "information" as defined under Section 2(f), which includes records, documents, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, data material held in any electronic form, and samples; file separate applications for different subjects to avoid rejection on grounds of complexity; keep copies of all applications and postal receipts; follow up on the 30-day deadline and file appeals promptly; and do not hesitate to approach the Information Commission if the PIO is unresponsive. Law Forum India provides free assistance in drafting RTI applications to citizens at our community workshops.