"People of this country have a right to know every public act, everything done in a public way, by their public functionary. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing."
"No democratic government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have information about the functioning of the government... that an open society is the new democratic culture towards which every liberal democracy is moving. Our society should be no exception."
— Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Supreme Court of India, S.P. Gupta vs Union of India, 1981
***
A recent review of Right to Information (RTI) implementation in India reveals considerable weakening, largely due to long delays in appeals being heard and decisions taken. This is highly unfortunate, as prompt and satisfactory response to appeals is crucial for realizing the aims of this important democratic law.
The review was conducted by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), a Delhi-based organization that has pioneered the use of RTI to protect entitlements of urban poor households. I recall participating in public hearings SNS organized in South Delhi slums in the early days of the RTI law; follow-up showed good results in improved entitlements.
The review found that 12 of 25 information commissions (ICs), including the Central Information Commission (CIC), have waiting periods of one year or more for appeal disposal. Two ICs are not functional at all. In extreme cases, three states have waiting periods of 18 or 19 years. Pending appeals and complaints before all ICs totalled 3,85,716 on June 30, 2026. On the positive side, the CIC has lately reduced its backlog significantly. However, the number of appeals rejected or returned remains very high.
The review also shows that sincere efforts can reduce waiting periods to reasonable levels—Gujarat and Karnataka ICs kept theirs to just one month. Anecdotal evidence from across the country reveals increasing implementation problems. This is unfortunate, as robust RTI in India was achieved only after a long drawn struggle. I remember when India's RTI journey received special attention and applause at international seminars, as it had been led by people's grassroots struggles.
The efforts and yearnings of about 15 years culminated in RTI legislation in 2005—not perfect but quite satisfactory, and soon mentioned as a model law in several other countries.
Two aspects of the RTI movement were remarkable. First, before the Indian movement, the demand for this right was generally not related to the struggles of the poor. In India, however, it rose from peasants' and workers' struggles in Rajasthan mobilized by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), becoming integral to struggles for rural employment and drought relief. This trend of RTI serving the poor was maintained in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Delhi and elsewhere. I recall meeting a Chief Minister with senior activists to raise this demand; when I mentioned its relevance for the poor, he asked what special relevance it had for them. This highlights that before the RTI struggles involving the poor—particularly in Rajasthan—there was little conceptual and practical understanding of RTI in the context of protecting the rights and entitlements of the poor.
Second, while around 1990 there was little support for RTI and much misgiving, by the time legislation was discussed in Parliament in 2005, such a strong base had been created that even politicians known to oppose it were not inclined to voice their feelings publicly. A significant part of the credit goes to activists and citizens who worked with great dedication. There was a National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) and other state-level groups (this writer was honoured to be the first Convener of NCPRI in its formative stage). At times these efforts appeared small in isolation, but together they kept the issue alive, and when other circumstances became favourable, fairly strong national legislation was passed.
During these 15 years, state-level RTI laws were enacted by nine state governments, including Tamil Nadu, Goa, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Delhi, Karnataka, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir. Some states passed administrative orders for RTI at village council level or for selected departments. Some Chief Ministers—Digvijay Singh (Madhya Pradesh), Ashok Gehlot (Rajasthan) and Sheila Dikshit (Delhi)—spoke strongly in favour of RTI. However, most state laws were relatively weak. In Goa, despite a weak law, the government received about 400 requests in the first year, many related to pollution. M.K. Jose and colleagues used the legislation effectively to expose irregularities, particularly in banking and educational institutions.
In Rajasthan, a strong grassroots movement for RTI emerged, led by MKSS, with several other organizations and individual citizens linked to it. The inspirational role of MKSS founder members Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey and Shankar Singh must be mentioned. The most remarkable aspect of grassroots RTI use in Rajasthan was exposing corruption in rural development/relief funds at village level and organizing public hearings (jan sunwais). In some villages, elected representatives admitted corrupt practices publicly and even agreed to return money. These jan sunwais were very democratic efforts in which almost the entire village community became involved.
Other organizations in Rajasthan followed MKSS's good work. One of the most successful was Jagruk Nagrik Manch (helped by Urmul Jyoti Sansthan) in Nokha block of Bikaner district, which claimed to have tackled nearly 400 corruption issues, leading to the return of almost one million rupees to victims. JNM also exposed a major fraud in the public distribution system, as a result of which the corrupt dealer agreed to return all ill-gotten money to the village community and surrender his dealership.
In Maharashtra, earlier very weak legislation was enacted, but later—thanks partly to a movement launched by social activist Anna Hazare and his fast, which attracted national attention—a highly progressive legislation was passed. Several persons like Sailesh Gandhi and Prakash Kardley used RTI effectively to expose a wide range of irregularities. A case relating to files of police transfers and politicians' recommendations attracted wide attention.
In Bharavan region of Hardoi district, Uttar Pradesh, villagers started questioning why development funds were not reaching them. Helped by activists of Asha Ashram, Lalpur, they used RTI at panchayat level. Despite initial difficulties, when records of ten panchayat areas were received, a very high level of fraud was exposed.
In Badwani district, Madhya Pradesh, drought relief benefits could not reach villagers in great need, as work was given to contractors using big machines in gross violation of government directives aimed at maximizing benefits to needy people. Adivasi Mukti Sangathan used RTI to reveal that persons not even present in the village were shown as employed. These cases were exposed at a public hearing in May 2003.
Earlier, Commissioner of Bilaspur Division (Chhattisgarh), Harsh Mander, with other officials and social activists, introduced significant experimental work on RTI. These experiments proved the effectiveness of RTI legislation, particularly in improving the public distribution system and reducing corruption.
In Meghalaya, a small but strong movement demanding RTI emerged, as also in other parts of the North East.
In the urban context, good results using RTI were obtained by Parivartan (led by Arwind Kejriwal) and later by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) in Delhi. Anjali Bhardwaj of SNS made a particularly important contribution. Several other organizations incorporated RTI into their work in Delhi's slums and resettlement colonies. In fact, a women's organization, Jagriti Mahila Samiti, led by Nirmala Sharma, was the first to take RTI's message to slums and other colonies of Delhi. This writer had opportunities to work with her; now that she is no more, she is remembered by many of us as a completely fearless woman working for the urban poor and opposing corruption at many levels.
An important part of these mobilizations was organizing public hearings to take up corruption and irregularities in open forums, where corruption could be discussed in front of affected villagers or slum dwellers and the accused were invited to present their point of view. Such was the moral strength of some initiatives that the accused agreed to return misappropriated funds. In other hearings, like Janawat in Rajasthan, the expose was followed by the government ordering a bigger official inquiry, which exposed corruption on a large scale. The Barefoot College organized a different kind of public hearing to declare the transparency of the voluntary organization at all levels, initiating a highly welcome trend. Eminent persons were invited as panellists, including journalists Kuldip Nayar, Ajit Bhattacharjee and Prabhash Joshi. Several senior academics extended cooperation, and Shekhar Singh made a particularly important contribution.
Thus, even before the passing of national-level RTI legislation, there were many effective examples of using RTI to check corruption and irregularities, using state-level or panchayat-level laws or directives, and these continued later. These efforts were strengthened when a better, stronger RTI law was passed at the national level. Effective use of RTI started spreading rapidly. Hence it is sad that recent neglect has weakened this law. This trend should be checked so that strong RTI remains a strength of India's democracy. The fact that despite increasing problems a very large number of people are still keen to use RTI indicates the continuing high relevance of this law and this right, and this can be improved significantly by sorting out implementation problems.
---
Bharat Dogra is Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. He has written several hundred articles and reports, as well as books and booklets on India's RTI experience in English and Hindi, and also edited a Hindi journal called Aar Paar on RTI and Transparency. His website is bharatdogra.in and his YouTube channel is Bharat Dogra | Save Earth Campaign
Comments