Skip to main content

RTI framework ‘nuked’? SHANTI Bill triggers alarm, grants centre sweeping secrecy powers

By Rajiv Shah 
Has the Government of India finally moved to completely change important provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, that too without bringing about any amendment in the top transparency law? It would seem so, if one is to believe well known civil society leaders' keen observations on the nuclear energy Bill passed in the Lok Sabha
Senior RTI activist Amrita Johri has sharply criticised the recently passed Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025, saying that it has effectively “nuked” the Right to Information (RTI) Act through the back door. 
In a social media post, Johri wrote: “The RTI Act just got NUKED through the SHANTI bill—RTI amendments through the back door! SHANTI Bill empowers central government to create new categories of information which will be exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. This completely destroys the RTI framework. Huge blow to sunshine law! #saverti.”
The SHANTI Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha during the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament by a voice vote amid a walkout by opposition parties, despite concerns raised by several Members of Parliament about its far-reaching implications. The legislation marks a major overhaul of India’s nuclear energy framework by opening the civil nuclear sector to private participation for the first time, repealing parts of older Acts including the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010 to encourage investment and technological collaboration in the sector. 
A core point of contention highlighted by Johri and other transparency advocates lies in the Bill’s provisions on information disclosure. Under Section 39 of the Bill, the Central Government is empowered to declare any information not in the public domain that it deems “detrimental to national security or public interest” as restricted information. This restricted category can include, among other things: the location, quality and quantity of prescribed substances and transactions; processing, production or extraction of fissile material; the design, siting, construction and operation of nuclear power plants or reactors; and research and technological work on related materials or processes. Once declared restricted, such information is explicitly debarred from disclosure under the RTI Act, even though the RTI would normally apply to public authority records. 
Specific language quoted from the Bill states that “No person shall disclose or obtain … any restricted information” and that the Central Government may, by notification, prohibit the publication in any form whatsoever of restricted information.” It further provides that “notwithstanding anything contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005, the information declared as restricted information … shall be debarred from disclosure under the provisions of that Act.” 
Opposition members and civil society critics argue that by granting such sweeping discretionary powers to the executive and creating entirely new exemptions that override the RTI Act without amending it directly, the SHANTI Bill undermines years of work establishing India’s transparency regime. Activists like Johri say this will severely limit the public’s ability to scrutinise government policy and operations in a sector that, while sensitive, also has profound safety, environmental and economic implications.
The government, for its part, has defended the provisions as essential for national security and public safety, asserting that the existing RTI framework already provides for exemptions on sensitive information and that greater clarity is needed in the context of nuclear energy governance.
As the Bill now moves to the Rajya Sabha for further consideration, the debate is expected to intensify over the balance between transparency and what the powers-that-be consider security concerns in one of the allegedly most strategically important but controversial sectors of India’s economy and infrastructure.

Comments

TRENDING

Tibetan activist’s self-immolation sparks fresh concerns over cultural rights

By Kumar Krishnan*  The question of Tibet has once again entered international discourse, raising difficult questions about human rights, religious freedom, cultural identity, language, and the relationship between political power and the rights of indigenous communities. On 20 August 2026, the Kashag and the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile jointly organised a solidarity prayer service and peace march to mark the 49th day since the death of Lobga Rangzen, a Tibetan activist who died after self-immolating on 2 July in front of the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

The “Dr” debate masks a larger crisis in allied-health education

By Dr P K Gupta*  India’s allied-health professions have long operated in a fragmented landscape of universities, hospitals, State authorities and private institutions, each with its own nomenclature, curriculum and standards. The National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 was meant to correct this by creating a unified national framework for education, professional regulation and institutional recognition. Few dispute the need for such oversight. The real question is whether standardisation is quietly becoming synonymous with longer courses, additional internships and new professional titles—changes that risk masking deeper gaps in clinical training, institutional capacity and affordability.

IMF's policies 'stabilise' external creditors' balance sheets, 'generate' crisis in Africa

By Grieve Chelwa, Vijay Prashad   Across Africa, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) presents itself as the custodian of macroeconomic stability. Its latest Article IV staff reports on Ethiopia . Malawi , Nigeria , South Africa , and Zambia are written for economies with very different histories and institutions. Yet they converge on a familiar prescription: fiscal consolidation, tighter monetary policy, market-determined exchange rates, subsidy reform, deregulation and ‘private-sector-led growth’. No serious economist can dismiss macroeconomic stability.