The CIC, RTI architecture & transparency
The RTI Act 2005 architecture, the Central Information Commission, the appeals machinery, key Supreme Court rulings and the 2019 amendment debate.
The statutory scheme of the RTI Act, 2005
The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005) came into force on 12 October 2005, repealing the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 which had never been notified. It operationalised the right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court having held in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) that the right to know is implicit in the freedom of speech and expression.
The Act binds every 'public authority' as defined in Section 2(h) — bodies constituted by or under the Constitution, by Parliament or State legislature, or by government notification, plus bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by government. In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013) the Supreme Court read 'substantially financed' narrowly. In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) the Court held examinees may inspect evaluated answer scripts.
How information flows
Under Sections 4 and 5, every public authority must designate Public Information Officers (PIOs) and proactively disclose seventeen categories of information under Section 4(1)(b) — the 'suo motu disclosure' obligation. A citizen files a request under Section 6 with a Rs.10 fee; the PIO must respond within 30 days (48 hours where life or liberty is concerned, per Section 7(1)). Section 8 lists the exemptions — national security, parliamentary privilege, cabinet papers, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationships — but Section 8(2) contains a public-interest override, and Section 24 exempts listed intelligence and security organisations save for allegations of corruption or human-rights violations.
The appeals ladder
The Act builds a three-tier grievance structure. The first appeal under Section 19(1) lies to an officer senior to the PIO within 30 days. The second appeal under Section 19(3) lies to the Information Commission within 90 days. Section 19(5) places the burden of proving denial was justified on the PIO. Section 20 empowers the Commission to impose a penalty of Rs.250 per day up to Rs.25,000 on a defaulting PIO and to recommend disciplinary action.
In CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) a Constitution Bench held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the RTI Act, subject to the public-interest balancing test, marking a landmark assertion of judicial transparency. Candidates must retain these section numbers and case names; Prelims questions frequently test the 30-day timeline, the Section 8 exemption list and the penalty cap.
