The gaps in the implementation of the RTI Act

Why in the News

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 asks public authorities to publish key information on their own, yet nearly 37% of authorities registered with the Central Information Commission (CIC) skipped the mandatory transparency audit in 2024-25. The CIC’s annual report and a check of department websites show the gap as the Act completes 21 years, with RTI requests and pending cases rising.

What does Section 4 of the RTI Act require?

1. Proactive disclosure: Section 4(1)(b) requires every public authority to publish 16 types of information, from officials’ contact details to budget spending, at regular intervals, like a shop displaying its price list.
2. Purpose of the provision: The Act wants authorities to give “as much information suo motu” (on their own) so that the public has “minimum resort” to filing requests.
3. Additional categories: Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines add eight broad categories, including procurement, public private partnerships and all RTI applications received.
4. Transparency audit: Mandatory third party audits check each authority’s Section 4 compliance, and the reports go to the CIC. Guidelines also recommend uploading them on department websites.
5. The takeaway: Website disclosure is meant to make the RTI application the exception, so every unpublished item becomes one more request a citizen must file.

What does the CIC’s audit record show?

1. Submission shortfall: Only 1,446 of the 2,303 public authorities registered with the CIC submitted a third party audit report for the year.
2. Weak grades: More than half of the submitted reports scored Grade C or below, meaning 80% or less in the audit.
3. Improving trend: Submissions have risen every year for five years and roughly doubled since 2020-21, when only 754 authorities filed.

What did a check of department websites find?

1. Audit reports online: Only 33 of the 94 departments listed as public authorities on the Union RTI portal had their latest audit report online.
2. Section 4 compliance: 56 departments published most of the required categories, with information updated to 2025-26.
3. Missing information: 26 websites lacked the information the Act covers, and the rest were minimal or dated. Eg. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment published none.

Why does the disclosure gap matter?

1. Rising demand: The number of new RTI requests and the cases pending with the CIC have both grown over the years.
2. Carried over backlog: Of roughly 23 lakh RTI requests handled in the latest year, about 5.1 lakh were carried over from the year before.
3. Disclosure and pendency: Every record not published must be asked for, so better Section 4 compliance would also cut pendency at the CIC and State Information Commissions.

Challenges

1. No consequence for skipping: The Section 20 penalty targets officers who wrongly deny a request, not authorities that fail to publish.
2. Appeal backlog: Over 4 lakh appeals were pending across 29 information commissions as of 2024.
3. Leaderless commissions: Delayed appointments stall hearings. Eg. Nine commissions had no Chief in late 2025.
4. Digital exclusion: Poor portal design in regional languages keeps rural citizens from filing online.

Way Forward

1. Public grading: Make the Section 4 audit annual, with each authority’s grade publicly accessible.
2. Mandatory upload: DoPT should require every department to post its latest audit report and date each disclosure.
3. Time limit for appeals: Fix a 90 day limit for commissions to dispose of second appeals, as the Second Administrative Reforms Commission recommended.
4. Multilingual portals: Standardise disclosure portals and link them to Bhashini, the government’s language translation platform.

Conclusion

Proactive disclosure is the RTI Act’s cheapest route to transparency, yet authorities still leave citizens to ask for what they should publish. Whether the CIC treats a missing or failing audit as a compliance breach rather than a statistic will decide if pendency starts to fall.

Key numbers

1. Grade split of submitted reports: A 410, B 253, C 302, D 215, E 266; Grade E means below 60% (CIC, 2024-25).
2. Carried over share: 22% of RTI requests handled in 2024-25 were pending from the previous year.

Back2Basics: Central Information Commission

1. What it is: The apex statutory body that enforces the RTI Act for Union public authorities.
2. Composition: A Chief Information Commissioner and up to ten Information Commissioners, appointed by the President.
3. Powers: It hears second appeals against Central Public Information Officers’ decisions and holds the powers of a civil court to summon persons and documents.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 15 marks] “Transparency and accountability in governance are not about controlling corruption but about creating the trust of stakeholders in the policy process by following the Rule of Law and Participatory Governance.” Comment.”