“These are not prescriptions, but suggestions worth debating to ensure that the Act remains effective while also safeguarding the integrity of decision-making,” it adds.
The survey also notes that the RTI Act was never intended as a tool for idle curiosity, nor as a mechanism to micromanage government from the outside. Its purpose is far higher, and the law itself makes that clear. The Act seeks “to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority” and “to contain corruption and to enhance the people’s participation in the democratic process.”
The Act is best understood not as an end in itself, but as a means to strengthen democracy. The wiser path is to keep it anchored to this original aim: enabling citizens to demand accountability for decisions that affect them, while also ensuring that space for candid deliberation and respect for privacy remain protected. That balance between openness and candour is what will keep the RTI Act true to its purpose, it added.
Some global History and practices
The survey also noted that the idea of citizens’ right to know is not uniquely Indian. “Sweden pioneered it with the world’s first Freedom of Information Law (FOIA) in 1766. The United States enacted its FOIA in 1966, and the United Kingdom followed in 2000.
Notably, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair later admitted he regretted introducing it, not because he opposed accountability, but because he felt governance itself suffered: ‘You can’t run a government without being able to have confidential discussions with people on issues of profound importance.’ The UK House of Commons Justice Committee (2012-13) reached a similar conclusion, urging wider use of exemptions to protect candid internal debate.
“The global experience suggests that transparency works best when paired with room for candid discussion,” describes survey.
It further said that in the United States, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memos, and financial regulation reports are exempt from disclosure. “Sweden protects fiscal and monetary policy, supervisory activities, and the economic interests of institutions under its secrecy provisions. The United Kingdom exempts policy formulation where disclosure may harm the public interest, with ministers retaining veto powers even against orders of courts or commissions. The World Bank similarly excludes deliberative information and administrative matters from its disclosure policy,” survey added.
RTI in India
According to the survey, India, in contrast leaves far less space for such carve-outs. Draft notes, internal correspondence, and even personal records of officials often enter the public domain, sometimes even where the link to public interest is weak.
Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom, or South Africa, which explicitly shield policy deliberations and draft documents, India has no general “deliberative process” exemption. File notings, internal opinions, and draft notes fall squarely within the Act’s definition of information with only Cabinet papers protected temporarily until a decision is made. Combined with a strong public interest override that can compel disclosure even of exempt material, suggests India’s RTI regime comparatively broad. The challenge now is to preserve this openness while also retaining space for effective public use of the law.
