Context
For more than a decade, the Right to Information Act (RTI) of 2005 has played a critical role in encouraging transparency and accountability in India's governance structure. This article examines the Act's multiple revisions, the obstacles it faces, the progress of online RTI applications, and public satisfaction with its operation.
 
What is RTI? 
Parliament passed the Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2005 in order to empower citizens, improve accountability and openness in government operations, and combat corruption.

Historical Background   
·         With the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, every individual was granted the inherent freedom to seek and receive information and ideas through any media, regardless of borders.
·         The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reaffirmed this principle in 1966, stating that everyone has the right to free expression, which includes the freedom to seek and communicate information and ideas of all kinds.
·         Thomas Jefferson, a pivotal figure in American history, stated that "information is the lifeblood of democracy." It is necessary for the development and vitality of civil society.
·         The Indian Parliament, on the other hand, established the Right to Information Act in 2005 in order to build a realistic framework for citizens to access information as a basic right.

Amendments to the RTI Act  
·         The RTI Act has undergone considerable changes over the years. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023, for example, changed the limitation on personal data disclosure into a total ban, thereby impeding social audits in critical areas such as ration distribution.
·         Furthermore, the Union Government was granted unilateral powers over the appointment and remuneration of information commissioners under the Right to Information (Amendment) Act of 2019, creating worries about their independence.
  
Undermining the RTI Act
Beyond legislative changes, the RTI Act's effectiveness is compromised in several ways.
·         The implementation of the Act is based on subordinate rules established by both the Union and state governments. This includes the critical payment method concern. Some states, such as Tamil Nadu, do not accept Indian Postal Orders (IPOs), a popular means of payment. Other solutions, such as court fee stamps or demand draughts, might be time-consuming.
·         Appointments to information commissions at both the federal and state levels have been delayed, undermining trust in the RTI system. For example, the Jharkhand State Information Commission (SIC) has been without commissioners since May 2020, essentially stopping RTI administration appeals.
 
Public Dissatisfaction  
·         At the grassroots level, there is a growing sense of dissatisfaction. More first-time appeals are being filed, reflecting growing dissatisfaction with information provided by public officials.
·         Key stakeholders, particularly whistleblowers, appear to be losing interest in the RTI process, which could undermine the Act's effectiveness.
·         This frustration derives not only from revisions to the RTI Act, but also from how various government agencies carry out their duties.
 
Other Challenges 
1.      Bureaucratic Attitude: The prevalence of false or malicious inquiries is sometimes mentioned as a justification for the dismissive attitude towards RTI enquiries. However, it is crucial to emphasise that such inquiries account for just about 4% of all appeals and are quickly resolved.
2.      Problems with Public Information Officers (PIOs): In some circumstances, PIOs engage in rash behaviour. For example, in Madhya Pradesh, an information commissioner had to issue an arrest warrant for a PIO who had continuously ignored 38 summons to appear at commission hearings and had refused to comply with SIC directives.
3.      PIOs' Lack of Preparedness: Serious RTI inquiries, particularly those involving many government departments, frequently demand the assistance of higher-ranking officials. 
4.      Government Negligence: When it comes to disciplinary action against faulty PIOs, government departments are frequently negligent. Such arrogance poses a huge challenge to the RTI regime.
5.      Code of Conduct: Some commissioners publicly stating their political affinities raises concerns about their impartiality and objectivity.
6.      Legal Complications: Many RTI cases become entangled in lengthy judicial procedures. Despite the fact that the RTI Act specifically identifies the information commissions as the final appeal authority, high courts regularly grant stay orders on their findings. Appeals are frequently disguised as writ petitions in order to obtain relief from the highest courts. 

Way Forward  
·         State governments must emulate the Rajasthan government's Jan Soochna portal programme, which attempts to involve people, including marginalised groups, in the governing process.
·         The Centre and States must work quickly to fill vacancies in the State and Central Information Commissions.
·         Public authorities should be encouraged to allow for more voluntary diffusion via government portals, which will lighten their load.
·         For the RTI regime to thrive, a robust political structure is required.
·         The Indian information law, which is regarded as one of the strongest in the world, has to be strengthened by raising public awareness and organising rigorous training for government workers.
·         The commissioners must maintain a safe distance from government officials and leaders of state.
 
Conclusion 
While the Right to Information Act of 2005 was a watershed moment in the fight for transparency, its effectiveness is under threat due to legislative changes, bureaucratic hurdles, and problems with web portals. Addressing these concerns and improving the Act's execution are critical to ensuring its sustained success in empowering citizens and keeping public officials responsible.
  
LTX Mains Question
Q. What are the main issues and obstacles confronting India's Right to Information Act (RTI), and how do they affect the Act's efficacy in promoting transparency and accountability in government?