Why in News?
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 institutionalises citizens’ access to government information and strengthens accountability.
The Tamil Nadu Government’s recent notification seeking to bring the Public (Law and Order) Department within the exemption framework of Section 24(4) followed by its withdrawal on September 27 after criticism.
This highlights the need to balance legitimate confidentiality with democratic transparency.
Importance of Transparency
Democratic accountability: RTI enables citizens to scrutinise executive decisions.
- Example: RTI has been used to examine implementation of welfare schemes and public works.
Checks arbitrariness: Access to records facilitates scrutiny of administrative reasoning.
- Section 4 mandates proactive disclosure by public authorities.
Human-rights protection: Information can facilitate scrutiny of State action.
- Example: Records concerning custodial deaths and police action may have significant public-interest implications.
Participatory governance: Information enables citizens to engage meaningfully with administration.
- Example: RTI can help beneficiaries verify delivery of public services.
Public trust: Transparent decision-making reduces information asymmetry between government and citizens.
- The 2nd ARC emphasised transparency as a foundation of accountable governance.
Concerns Regarding Broad Exemptions
Scope: The proposed exemption raised concerns because the Public Department performs diverse functions beyond narrowly defined security activities.
- Example: Its responsibilities include matters relating to communal incidents and law-and-order situations.
Existing safeguards: Section 8(1)(a) protects information affecting national security, while Section 8(1)(h) covers information whose disclosure would impede investigation or prosecution.
Human-rights exception: Section 24 itself provides that information concerning allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is not completely excluded from disclosure, subject to the prescribed procedure.
Legislative scrutiny: Under Section 24(5), a State notification issued under Section 24(4) must be laid before the State Legislature.
Due process: The controversy demonstrates the importance of clearly defining the information genuinely requiring confidentiality rather than relying on unnecessarily broad exclusions.
Institutional Challenges
Tamil Nadu pendency: The Satark Nagrik Sangathan 2024-25 assessment reported more than 41,000 appeals and complaints pending before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission as of June 2025.
National backlog: The same assessment recorded 4,13,972 pending appeals/complaints across 29 Information Commissions as of June 30, 2025.
Weak penalty enforcement: It found that penalties were not imposed in 98% of cases where they were potentially imposable.
Reporting deficit: 20 of 29 Information Commissions had not published their 2023-24 annual reports.
Capacity constraints: Vacancies and inadequate institutional capacity can prolong appeals and weaken the practical effectiveness of the RTI Act.
RTI-Privacy Interface
Data-protection concerns: Changes associated with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 have generated concerns among transparency advocates regarding the scope of personal-information exemptions under the RTI framework.
Legitimate privacy: Personal information unrelated to public activity merits protection.
- Example: Private medical or family information ordinarily warrants confidentiality.
Public accountability: Information concerning public expenditure or exercise of official authority can have a stronger public-interest basis.
Statutory balance: Section 8(2) permits disclosure where public interest in disclosure outweighs the protected interest.
Proportionality: Privacy protection should prevent unjustified disclosure without becoming a blanket basis for withholding information concerning public administration.
Way Forward
Strengthen TNSIC: Fill vacancies and adopt time-bound disposal of appeals.
- The SNS assessment demonstrates substantial pendency.
Improve proactive disclosure: Implement Section 4 comprehensively to reduce dependence on individual RTI applications.
Apply targeted exemptions: Use specific statutory exemptions for genuinely sensitive information rather than unnecessarily broad departmental exclusions.
Ensure legislative oversight: Strictly comply with Section 24(5) whenever Section 24(4) is invoked.
Enhance enforcement: Ensure timely, reasoned RTI decisions and effective use of statutory penalties where legally warranted.
