October should have ideally been an occasion of celebration for the architects and the supporters of the Right to Information Act. After all, the RTI Act, which seeks to revolutionise — democratise — the compact of information between citizens and the powers that be, completed 20 years since its inception this month. However, this is a solemn occasion, one that merits public reflection on the matter. This is because two decades into its creation, the RTI today is confronted with steep challenges — institutional, legal and, it must be admitted, political — that seek to not only undermine this path-breaking legislation but also undo the gains that have been accrued. The institutional lacunae are visible. A recent report appraising the performance of 28 State Information Commissions and the Central Information Commission found numerous structural impediments: two of the bodies are defunct, three are functioning without a chief, while 18 have a waiting list of more than a year. This is the reason why the case load continues to rise while the disposal rate remains abysmal. 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. This 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.
What makes the RTI a visionary legislation is its willingness to draw a parity between the power and the rights of the elected representatives with those of the citizens. This is in keeping with the spirit of representative democracy where officials and politicians are deemed to be an extension of the will of the people. The sustained efforts to weaken the legislation are meant to target this notion of equality between citizen and official. The placement of officials on a pedestal such that they remain immune to public scrutiny goes against the spirit of a people’s democracy. This anomaly — lopsidedness — must be corrected sooner than later.