RTI Act now being strengthened: Rules need to be modified to prevent misuse

Ever since the first amendment in RTI Act was done ever since its implementation on October 12, 2005, some NGOs and opposition parties are crying that the RTI Act is diluted! But the amendment made in the year 2019 aimed to change the status and tenure of Information Commissioners, in no way affected users of the RTI Act.

Insertion of section 44(3) in “The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023”, removing riders to section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, in fact, is necessary to preserve Parliamentary privilege and remove confusion through the term “public-interest”. It is perhaps for the first time that the Central Information Commission has the full strength of a Chief Information Commissioner and ten Information Commissioners sworn on December 15, 2025.

Otherwise also, the earlier two Commissioners went on disposing of the cases at a fast speed, with Vinod Kumar Tiwari having disposed of 12700 cases with quality judgements elaborately worded in a short span of just 24 months, while this figure does not include matters of Show-Cause notices and Non-Compliance matters. It is significant that he even heard some cases on different dates to ensure enough opportunity to respondent public-authorities to defend their case, like in his verdict dated January 16, 2025, in petition-number CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/108412 in the matter “Sanjeev Kumar versus Directorate of Health Services (GNCTD”. He even imposed a penalty on the PIO and awarded compensation to the petitioner, apart from making recommendations while highlighting malpractices in the working of private hospitals, with DHS being the mute spectator. 

Even the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ-petition WPC 596/2026 against this verdict on the first day of hearing, i.e., January 16, 2026. Even the present Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal echoed likewise in his verdict dated January 16, 2026, observing that despite 20 years of implementation of the RTI Act, public information officers and first appellate authorities in DHS (GNCTD) were not alert to their legal responsibilities, terming it to be a serious issue.

At the same time, Vinod Kumar Tiwari praised such officers who respond to matters nicely not only while responding to RTI applications, but also while presenting their case before the Commission. An example is a decision dated November 17, 2025, in file-number CIC/DDATY/A/2024/114518 in the matter “Pawan Jindal versus Delhi Development Authority (DDA)” where he praised Rahul Gupta, PIO-cum-Executive Engineer (DDA) for his nicely presenting the case before the Commission. Such praise in a CIC verdict motivates others to do similar nice work to handle RTI matters. However, RTI rules (and not the RTI Act) need important modifications mainly to prevent misuse of the Act and minimising challenge to CIC verdicts in courts. Notification should be to declare all public-private-partnerships, sports bodies, cooperative societies, and other such bodies, public authorities under the RTI Act.

Land and Building Departments of the central and State Governments should study all cases of allotment of land or Government-accommodations at subsidised rates or lease, and declare all these as public authorities under the RTI Act. For the future, land or Government-accommodations should be provided at subsidised rates on pre-condition of beneficiaries coming under the purview of the RTI Act.

Offices like those of the President, Prime Minister, Governor, Lt Governor and Chief Minister must not act like “Post Offices” by transferring RTI applications under section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned departments. These offices should entertain RTI applications pertaining to their respective offices only, and returning rest others to RTI applicants, advising applicants to file RTI applications directly to the concerned departments.

Considering the vast participation of public money in private sector banks, all private sector banks must be under the purview of the RTI Act. Already, all employees up to the highest post of CMD are public servants according to the Banking Regulation Act. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had to impose restrictions on the withdrawal of money for some time on a prominent private sector bank.

Former CMD of another prominent private sector Bank is under arrest for serious charges of misappropriation of public-money in the Bank. Inspection Reports of private banks, revealed under the RTI Act by the RBI, reveal gross misuse of public money by top management. Another private sector bank is in notoriety for a large number of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).

Heavy fluctuation in share prices of certain private sector banks tends to doubt regarding the safety of public money in private sector banks. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (RBIsubsidiary) has to pay a maximum of rupees five lakhs from state-funds to each depositor of the bank, including those in the private sector, which collapses due to massive irregularities, which is public funding to declare private sector banks as “public authorities” under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Sections 27 and 28 of the RTI Act give power to Competent Authorities and state-Governments to draft their own rules, which include fixing of RTI fees.

Several Competent Authorities and states misused their power by having RTI fees as high as rupees 500. However, the Supreme Court in its verdict dated March 20, 2018, imposed a capping of rupees fifty to be maximum RTI fees.

RTI-fees should be uniformly rupees 50, inclusive of copying charges for the first twenty copied pages. Making basic RTI-fees at rupees fifty will largely prevent misuse of the RTI Act. There must not be any fees for filing First or Second Appeals.

Handling the cost of a postal-order of value rupees ten costs the postal department about rupees fifty, with the cost of handling of postal-orders by a public-authority and bank-clearing even extra.

The Postal Department should issue special RTI stamps (like earlier stamps for licence fees of radios and TV sets) in denominations of rupees 2, 10 and 50, which will save crores of rupees annually to public-exchequers in using postal orders as a mode of payment of RTI fees.  These RTI stamps should be available at all post offices and counters of public-authorities and other convenient sale points.

Post-free RTI-applications addressed to central public-authorities should be accepted at all about 160000 post offices rather than just about 4500 post offices presently. It is not difficult because every post-office however small it may be, daily sends a post-bag to the Head Post Office with registered post, cash and unsold revenue-articles. This post-bag can carry post-free RTI-applications received at the post office.

Decision dated November  2, 2012 by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter “Fruit and Vegetable Union versus Unknown” (CWP 4787 of 2011) requiring ID proof compulsorily with every RTI application, First Appeal and petitions filed with Information Commissions should be compulsorily adopted throughout the country Police-enquiry conducted at behest of some Indian missions abroad established that a petitioner approached Central Information Commission with name and address both of which did not exist.

RTI-responses and orders of First Appellate Authorities should be auto-emailed rather than RTI-applicants required to search portals for viewing of RTI-responses and orders by First Appellate Authorities.

Websites designed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC) for central public authorities should be mandatorily for all states. This has become necessary for state like Odisha, which has made online filing of RTI-applications a mockery when it is compulsory to download an online-filled RTI-application, and then send it by post to the concerned department.

Delhi High Court in its order dated August 8, 2018, in WPC 8278 of 2018 in the matter “Anil Dutt Sharma versus Government of NCT Delhi and others” mentioned — This Court is of the prima facie view that the Right-To-Information Act, 2005 would now override the Delhi Right To Information Act, 2001.

The DRTI Act has lost all with the implementation of the RTI Act 2005. Very few applications are filed under the DRTI Act. All such acts legislated by individual states, before the RTI Act 2005 came into existence, must be repealed.

The writer is an RTI consultant holding the Guinness World record for most letters published in newspapers; views are personal