‘Act was never intended as a tool for idle curiosity’: Economic Survey calls for re-examination of RTI Act

Among the suggestions it made to revisit the Act included, exempting brainstorming notes, working papers, and draft comments until they form part of the final record of decision-making, protection of service records, transfers, and confidential staff reports. Crucially, it suggested exploring a “narrowly defined” ministerial veto, subject to parliamentary oversight to guard against disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.

The survey sought to draw parallels between the RTI Act and similar laws in the US, UK and Sweden and argued that unlike the RTI Act, internationally, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memos, and financial regulations are exempt from disclosures. It said that in contrast, the Indian law leaves “far less space” for such carve-outs, where in draft notes, internal correspondence, and personal records officials often enter public domain, with weak public interest links.  It noted that unlike the US, UK or South Africa, which shield policy deliberations and draft documents, India has no general “deliberative process” exemption. “File notings, internal opinions, and draft notes fall squarely within the Act’s definition of information, with only Cabinet papers protected temporarily until a decision is made.”

Elaborating its argument, the survey sought to flag concerns that if every draft or remark is disclosed, officials may “hold back”, resorting instead to cautious language and fewer “bold ideas.” Making it clear that it was not seeking secrecy by default, the survey stated “democracy best functions when officials can deliberate freely and are then held accountable for the decisions they endorse, not for every half-formed thought expressed along the way”.

As on June 30, 2025, 4.13 lakh appeals and complaints were pending before 29 information commissions, as per an October 2025 appraisal report of information commissions by Satark Nagrik Sangathan.

Transparency campaigner Anjali Bharadwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) said that issues flagged by the survey regarding the impact on officials is not borne out by evidence. She said that the Act already has a robust mechanism on exempting certain disclosures and has enough safeguards to protect decision making.

“Before tinkering with an empowering law, one must present strong evidence. Studies have shown that the majority of the RTI’s have been filed when basic rights have been denied to seek accountability and access rights. Moreover, 70% of the requests made under the law are on information that should be in the public domain. Section 4 on proactive disclosures is poorly implemented and the survey is totally silent on it,” Bharadwaj said.

Shailesh Gandhi, who served as a Chief Information Commissioner said that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act. 2023, had already diluted the RTI Act, allowing a wide ambit of denial, turning it into a “Right to Deny” Act, “The survey’s observations are flawed. Can they point out how governance has been hurt due to the RTI Act. In a democracy, government decisions ought to be debated and the RTI Act empowers people to access government decisions,” he said.