The call for a re-examination of the Right to Information Act, particularly the provisions related to the disclosure of deliberations that inform policymaking, in this year’s Economic Survey has sparked off a controversy with the right to information activists saying that it is yet another move to defang the measure. They say that the Survey’s premise that interpreting civic scrutiny of governance as antithetical to the entrepreneurial spirit is misplaced and wrong. Also, the observation that such disclosures ‘unduly constrain governance’ is a narrow reading of administrative efficiency.
Economic Surveys rarely wade into political waters, but this one, authored by Chief Economic Advisor V. Anantha Nageswaran, has. His latest survey does paint a favourable picture of India’s economy, but it does not shy away from pointing out some emerging risks and developing problems.
“RTI Act is under attack again,” said Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, in a Facebook post. “Economic Survey with zero evidence or data calls for a re-examination of the law by expanding the scope and nature of exemptions, suggests allowing ministers a veto power to deny information and shielding deliberations from public scrutiny! Democracy dies in darkness.”
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has accused the Modi government of weakening the RTI Act and failing to protect truth-seekers and transparency activists. “The Economic Survey has called for 're-examination' of the RTI Act... After killing MGNREGA, is it RTI's turn to get murdered?” Kharge wrote on X, referring to the replacement of the two-decade-old rural employment scheme with the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or VB-G RAM G.
Kharge highlighted that the survey suggested a possible ‘ministerial veto’ to withhold information and explore shielding public service records, transfers and staff reports of bureaucrats from public scrutiny. He added that over 26,000 RTI cases were pending as of 2025.
This is not the first time that such charges have been levelled against the Modi government. A report appraising the performance of 28 State Information Commissions and the Central Information Commission found numerous structural impediments: two of the bodies were defunct, three were functioning without a chief, while 18 had waiting lists of more than a year. This was the reason for the case load to continue to rise, while the disposal rate remained abysmal. Some of the vacancies have now been filled.
Some of the threats to the Act are, however, camouflaged and require greater engagement. Consider, for instance, the problematic provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act that seek to weaponise the principle of privacy to thwart the justified collective right to hold public servants accountable. The deleterious impact of one law on another merits corrective action. There is, thirdly, the issue of a political design inimical to the functioning of the act. For instance, in 2019, an amendment ensured that the Central government has the power to determine the salaries, allowances and such other terms of service of the chief information commissioner and other personnel. This intervention, critics have rightly pointed out, dealt a blow to the autonomy of the RTI’s officials.
Evading public scrutiny
The government has reportedly also tried to evade public scrutiny by claiming that it did not have data on certain issues, like migrant workers who died during Covid, paper leaks in competitive exams, etc, as also on farmers’ suicides.
Rights activists say public access to documents illuminates the evolution of a policy and provides a context for certain ideas to be accepted or rejected. They are a precious tool for citizens to force the bureaucracy to share information concerning public policy and the delivery of services and goods. A transparent bureaucracy is, in turn, fundamental to a stable, predictable and fair economic environment.
By reducing information asymmetry between citizens and the state, the RTI has redefined the relationship between the two. The argumentative ethos fostered by the disclosure provisions has been critical to keeping bureaucrats on their toes. They are not ‘tools for ideal disclosure’, as the survey notes.
The RTI’s roles in exposing major scams – the Vyapam scam and the Adarsh Housing Society scam, for instance – is a testimony to its role as a governance enhancer. The Act has also been used to question the RBI during the banking scams. The financial probity catalysed the Supreme Court’s verdicts in the Girish Mittal (2021) and Jayantilal Mistry (2016) cases, wherein the SC held that the Central Bank must disclose names of wilful loan defaulters and details of Non-Performing Assets of public sector banks.
To be fair, the Economic Survey does acknowledge that the RTI Act is a ‘powerful tool for reform’. Critics say that the government would do well to go by the survey’s overall governance-centred ethos, and not heed the suggestion to re-examine RTI.