.

---

The RTI Act Under Siege: How DoPT's "Deliberate Disobedience" is Killing Transparency

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, was hailed as a powerful tool to strengthen Indian democracy, empowering citizens to hold their government accountable. Yet, nearly two decades later, this revolutionary law is facing an existential threat—not from external forces, but from within the very system meant to uphold it. At the heart of this crisis is the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the nodal agency for the RTI Act, whose actions (and inactions) paint a clear picture of deliberate disobedience, rather than mere administrative failure.

The Unfilled Benches: A Stalled Watchdog

Perhaps the most glaring symptom of this crisis is the consistent and egregious understaffing of the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC, meant to be the apex appellate body with a Chief Information Commissioner and 10 Information Commissioners, currently operates with a paltry fraction of its strength. As of September 2025, with the Chief Information Commissioner's post vacant and only two Information Commissioners in place, a staggering 9 out of 11 posts are lying empty.

This isn't a recent oversight. In October 2023, then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud issued a stark warning, observing that the RTI Act was becoming a "dead letter" due to these very vacancies. Despite this, and despite the DoPT's own promises to the Supreme Court in January 2025 to complete appointments by April 2025, the vacancies persist. This isn't failure; it's a deliberate act of defiance against judicial directives and a calculated strategy to cripple the commission, leading to a backlog of over 26,000 cases and turning the "right to information" into a right to indefinitely delayed information.

Ignorance is Bliss: When DoPT "Forgets" Landmark Judgments

The DoPT's role is to educate public authorities on the RTI Act. Yet, astonishingly, it has failed to issue specific Office Memoranda (OMs) on crucial Supreme Court and High Court judgments that clarify fundamental aspects of the law:

• Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs. CPIO, SCI (2019): This landmark Supreme Court judgment clarified that "accessible information" is broad – if a public authority holds it, it must be disclosed, irrespective of its format or the effort required to compile it. It also debunked the notion that "unrecorded opinions" are not information, emphasizing that a public authority's failure to maintain records cannot be used to deny information. The DoPT's silence on this allows CPIOs to continue using archaic excuses to deny legitimate requests.
• GNCTD vs. Prabhjot Singh Dhillon (Delhi High Court): This judgment explicitly stated that information cannot be denied on the grounds that it is "voluminous" or requires "collation." Again, the DoPT has issued no formal directive, allowing administrative convenience to trump transparency.

This isn't mere administrative oversight. By withholding critical clarifications, the DoPT effectively empowers CPIOs to operate in ignorance, enabling them to deny information on grounds repeatedly rejected by higher courts. This creates an environment where non-compliance is tacitly encouraged.

The "Administrative Officer" Fallacy: CPIOs as Unqualified Gatekeepers

Our discussions have highlighted that the CPIO, while an administrative officer, performs functions with significant legal implications. They interpret Section 2(f) (what constitutes information), Sections 8 & 9 (exemptions), and Sections 5(4) & 6(3) (custodianship and transfer of requests). To properly apply these sections, to cite correct reasons for denial as mandated by Section 4(1)(d), and to navigate complex judicial precedents, requires knowledge and experience of law.

Yet, the DoPT has never issued an OM mandating such qualifications or even specific training that instills this legal acumen. This results in CPIOs, often ordinary administrative officers without legal background, misinterpreting the Act, wrongly denying information, and relying on lazy excuses like "this is a query, not information" – an approach that further undermines citizens' rights.

Killing Democracy Silently

The cumulative effect of DoPT's actions—or calculated inactions—is not just administrative inefficiency; it is a deliberate and systematic weakening of the RTI Act.

• By leaving the Information Commissions toothless, the government ensures appeals pile up, making justice delayed, and thus justice denied.
• By failing to educate CPIOs on crucial judicial pronouncements, it perpetuates a culture of denial and opacity at the grassroots level.
• By ignoring the spirit of the law and court directives, the DoPT is effectively overriding the RTI Act through administrative silence, which is a far more insidious threat than an outright repeal.

This pattern is a silent assault on the democratic fabric of India. It erodes trust, fosters impunity, and ensures that the powerful remain unscrutinized. It is time for accountability from the very agency tasked with upholding transparency. The RTI Act is a fundamental right, and allowing its steady strangulation by administrative design is nothing short of killing democracy, silently.