RTI Act 2005

The Right to Information Act, 2005 received presidential assent on 15 June 2005 and came into full force on 12 October 2005, repealing the weaker Freedom of Information Act, 2002. It operationalises the fundamental right to know, which the Supreme Court read into the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), and into the right to life under Article 21. The Act's preamble locates it in the promotion of transparency and accountability and the containment of corruption, declaring an "informed citizenry" essential to a functioning democracy. It applies to all "public authorities" — bodies constituted under the Constitution, by Parliament or a State legislature, or substantially financed by government — across the Union and States except Jammu and Kashmir originally (which had its own law until the 2019 reorganisation extended the central Act).

Mechanically, every public authority must designate Public Information Officers (PIOs) to receive requests, and must proactively disclose seventeen categories of information under Section 4 (suo motu disclosure), reducing the need for individual applications. A citizen files a request with a nominal fee; the PIO must respond within 30 days (48 hours where life or liberty is concerned). Refusal is permissible only under the exemptions in Section 8 (sovereignty, security, Cabinet papers, commercial confidence, personal privacy, etc.) and Section 9, subject to a public-interest override and a partial-severability rule under Section 10. A first appeal lies to a senior officer, and a second appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC) or a State Information Commission, which can impose penalties up to ₹25,000 on errant PIOs under Section 20. Section 22 gives the Act overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and inconsistent laws.

Landmark applications include the Supreme Court's ruling in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) permitting inspection of evaluated answer scripts, and Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), where the Court held the office of the Chief Justice of India to be a public authority under the Act. The controversial RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 empowered the Centre to fix the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners, drawing criticism that it undermined the Commissions' independence. As of 2026, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amended Section 8(1)(j), broadening the personal-information exemption — a change activists argue dilutes disclosure of officials' records.

For the UPSC exam, the RTI Act is a staple of GS Paper II (governance, transparency, accountability) and GS Paper IV (Ethics), where it is framed as a tool of probity, citizen empowerment and the right against arbitrary state action. Typical question angles ask candidates to evaluate the 2019 amendment's effect on Commission autonomy, balance RTI against the DPDP Act and privacy (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017), or discuss Section 4 proactive disclosure as preventive accountability. Ethics case studies often pit an officer's transparency duty against confidentiality, making mastery of Sections 4, 8, 20 and 22 essential.