India Explained
ImplementedINCManmohan Singh, coalition government

Right to Information Act, 2005

Parliament created an enforceable right to request records held by public authorities, with Central and State Information Commissions as appellate bodies. Backlogs and a 2019 amendment are debated.

Transparency & RTI

Facts

  • The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005) received assent on 15 June 2005 and came into force on 12 October 2005, the 120th day after enactment; some provisions (for example duties of public authorities and constitution of the information commissions) took effect immediately [1].
  • The Act's text describes its purpose as providing a practical regime of the right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority [1].
  • Information commissions are the final appellate authority under the Act: the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs), each consisting of a chief information commissioner and up to 10 information commissioners [2].
  • The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 received assent on 1 August 2019. It replaced the fixed five-year term of information commissioners with a term 'as may be prescribed by the Central Government'; Rules notified in October 2019 set three years, and pay was no longer tied to that of Election Commissioners [6].
  • On 13 November 2019 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Act, and applied a proportionality test between privacy and public interest [4].
  • Volume: central public authorities received over 12.33 lakh RTI applications in 2017-18, according to the CIC annual report as reported by IANS [5].
  • Information commission caseload: 2,41,751 appeals and complaints were registered between 1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025 in 27 commissions and 1,82,165 were disposed; 4,13,972 were pending in all 29 commissions on 30 June 2025, up from 4,05,509 on 30 June 2024 (figures compiled by Satark Nagrik Sangathan from RTI replies) [2][3].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • The Act's preamble, as summarised in the official text, rests on the reasoning that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information to contain corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable [1].
  • The Act states its operative aim as promoting transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority [1].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • Satark Nagrik Sangathan, an RTI-focused civil society group, reports that the right is weakened in practice by commission vacancies, backlog and low use of penalties; for example it found commissions did not impose penalties in 98% of cases where penalties were potentially imposable in 2024-25 [2].
  • Critics of the 2019 amendment, including Jairam Ramesh in a petition before the Supreme Court, argued that letting the Centre set commissioners' tenure and service conditions affects their independence; a commentary reports the government's position as rationalisation, since parity with a constitutional body was anomalous for a statutory one [6].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Created a statutory, appealable right of access to government records applying across the Centre and States.Commissions in all 29 jurisdictions registered 2,41,751 appeals and complaints in a single year (July 2024 to June 2025), and central bodies received 12.33 lakh applications in 2017-18 [2][5].
  • Extended transparency obligations to the judiciary's administrative side, as clarified by the Supreme Court.CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (13 November 2019) held the office of the CJI to be a public authority, with personal information subject to a proportionality test [4].

Concerns (3)

  • Large and growing backlog of second appeals and complaints.4,05,509 pending on 30 June 2024 and 4,13,972 on 30 June 2025; SNS estimated 18 commissions would take more than a year to dispose of a matter filed on 1 July 2025, and Telangana about 29 years 2 months [2][3].
  • Commission capacity and reporting gaps.SNS reported the CIC without a Chief Information Commissioner (the 7th time in 11 years), the CIC returning 38% of appeals/complaints without orders in 2024-25 (42% in 2023-24), and 20 of 29 commissions not publishing a 2023-24 annual report as required by Section 25 [2][3].
  • Dispute over commissioners' independence after the 2019 amendment.Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on a petition by Jairam Ramesh challenging the amendment and the 2019 Rules; final outcome not verified here [6].

Evidence points

+15.0
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+15 to +15
range between the two scorers' totals
Medium confidence
scorers agree within 1 point on every criterion
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +4.5A +5B +4
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean +3.0A +3B +3
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean +2.5A +2B +3
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean +3.0A +3B +3
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +2.0A +2B +2

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Enforceable right used by lakhs of applicants each year, but commission backlogs exceeding four lakh pending cases and independence disputes weaken delivery.

Scorer B. Lakhs of requests annually and judicial affirmation show real use, offset by large commission backlogs and independence disputes.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
Before October 2005 there was no general enforceable statutory right of access to central government records; the Act applied to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir at the time (context drawn from government RTI pages, not independently re-verified).
Lag before outcomes show
5 years
Shocks considered
covid-2020
Uncertainty
Medium confidence. Scorer totals are +15 and +15. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The Act gives any citizen a right to request information held by a public authority, sets response timelines for designated officers, and provides a first appeal within the authority and a second appeal or complaint to an information commission. Supporters, including civil society groups that use the law, point to its reach and to court rulings widening its scope. Critics and monitoring groups focus on how the commissions function: vacancies, pendency, the share of cases returned without a hearing, and limited use of penalties.

The 2019 amendment is a separate point of dispute. The government’s position, as reported in commentary, was that equating commissioners with Election Commissioners was anomalous for a statutory body; petitioners argued that executive control over tenure and pay affects independence. The Supreme Court issued notice on the challenge; its final disposal has not been verified for this entry.

The caseload figures above are compiled by a civil society group from RTI replies and are not the commissions’ own consolidated statistics; the CIC’s own annual report figures for 2023-24 could not be retrieved.

Sources

  1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (official text, No. 22 of 2005)
    Bureau of Energy Efficiency (Government of India), reproducing the ActPrimary

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedINCGovernance & Federalism

    Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

    The Act created a Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in States to inquire into corruption allegations against public servants, including the Prime Minister with safeguards. The first Lokpal took office in 2019.

    Evidence points +1.5 (range +1.0 to +2.0)

  • ImplementedBJPGovernance & Federalism

    Abrogation of Article 370 and reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir

    In August 2019 the President ended the special constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir and Parliament split the state into two Union Territories; the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation in 2023.

    Evidence points +1.5 (range +1.0 to +2.0)

  • ImplementedINCGovernance & Federalism

    States Reorganisation Act 1956

    Parliament redrew India's state boundaries largely along linguistic lines in 1956, replacing the Part A to D classification with 14 states and 6 union territories.

    Evidence points +15.5 (range +15.0 to +16.0)