Not a tool for 'idle curiosity', Economic Survey bats for revamping India's RTI Act

Representative image

• Survey suggests limited RTI Act review to align with global practices
• Proposals include exempting internal talks and considering ministerial veto
• Survey emphasizes RTI's importance in accountability and democracy

Did our AI summary help?

The Economic Survey for 2025-26 has made a case for a limited re-examination of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, arguing that the law was never "intended as a tool for idle curiosity, nor as a mechanism to micromanage government from the outside."

Describing the RTI Act as one of India’s most powerful democratic reforms, the Survey cautions against a mechanical celebration of disclosure that may prioritise transparency for its own sake, rather than for its contribution to better public decision-making.

Instead, its core objective remains the promotion of accountability in decisions that affect citizens and the containment of corruption, it said.

Nearly two decades after its enactment, the Survey argues, India’s RTI Act may benefit from aligning with best global practices wiithout diluting its spirit.

Among the changes, it suggests that internal deliberative material such as brainstorming notes, working papers and draft comments could be exempted from disclosure until they crystallise into final decisions.

This would preserve space for frank discussion within government, the Survey said.

Another suggestion put forward is the exploration of a narrowly defined ministerial veto on disclosures that could seriously impede governance, subject to strong parliamentary oversight to prevent misuse.

The Survey stresses that these are not prescriptions but proposals for public and parliamentary debate. Any re-examination, it says, must preserve the RTI Act’s central role as an accountability instrument, while refining its operation in “narrowly defined areas of internal deliberation.”

“The enduring strength of the RTI Act lies in its balance,” the Survey concludes, “between openness and candour, transparency and trust.”

Maintaining that balance, it said, is essential to ensure that the law continues to strengthen democratic governance rather than inadvertently weakening the quality of decision-making it was designed to improve.