Key Points
The Survey suggests exploring exemptions for deliberative policy material such as draft notes, working papers and brainstorming documents, and proposes considering a narrowly defined ministerial veto with parliamentary oversight.
It argues India’s RTI regime allows wider disclosure of internal records than countries such as the US, UK and Sweden, which provide broader protections for policy deliberations and internal administrative documents.
Transparency advocates and opposition leaders say existing safeguards are sufficient and warn that the proposed direction could weaken accountability and public access to information.
The Economic Survey 2025-26, released on 29 January 2026, describes the Right to Information (RTI) Act as a “powerful democratic reform” that strengthened accountability and curbed corruption. However, it argues the law risks becoming “an end in itself”, stating that the Act was never intended as “a tool for idle curiosity” or for citizens to micromanage government functioning.
The comments were made under the ‘Transparency without Blindness' section of the chapter ‘Building strategic resilience and strategic indispensability: The role of the state, the private sector sector and the citizens’.
Among the changes flagged for discussion are exempting internal brainstorming notes, draft comments and working papers from the purview of ‘public information’ until they become part of the final record of decision-making. The Survey also mentions protecting service records, transfer details and confidential staff reports from disclosure. It proposes examining a “narrowly defined” ministerial veto, subject to parliamentary oversight, to prevent disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.
Drawing comparisons with global practices, the document says that in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Sweden, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memoranda and aspects of policy formulation are typically exempt from disclosure. In contrast, it notes, India’s law leaves “far less space” for such carve-outs, with draft notes, internal correspondence and personal records often entering the public domain even when the public interest link is weak. It adds that unlike the US, UK or South Africa, India has no general “deliberative process” exemption, and file notings, internal opinions and draft notes fall within the definition of information, with only Cabinet papers temporarily protected.
The Survey argues that routine disclosure of preliminary remarks may affect administrative candour. It warns that if every draft or internal comment is open to public scrutiny, officials may resort to cautious language and avoid proposing “bold ideas”. It states that democracy functions best when officials can deliberate freely and are held accountable for the final decisions they endorse, not for “every half-formed thought”.
Data cited in public discourse around the RTI system shows 4.13 lakh appeals and complaints pending before 29 information commissions as of 30 June 2025 – this is according to an October 2025 appraisal by Satark Nagrik Sangathan, an advocacy group working towards government transparency and accountability. Transparency campaigners dispute the Survey’s premise that the law hampers governance.
See Also: ₹106 Crore Received, Only ₹75,000 Spent: RTI Reveals Massive Gap in Maharashtra CM Relief Fund Spending During Floods
The proposed changes to the RTI Act have been viewed by many as a means to dilute governmental accountability.
Anjali Bharadwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, said the concerns raised about officials holding back are not supported by evidence. She said the Act already contains robust exemption clauses and safeguards for decision-making. She added that studies show a majority of RTI applications are filed when basic rights are denied, and that about 70% of requests seek information that should already be in the public domain. She also said Section 4 on proactive disclosure is poorly implemented.
Speaking to The Indian Express, Former Chief Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act has already diluted the RTI framework by expanding grounds for denial. DPDP amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, notifying total exemption of ‘personal information’ from its purview and removing a provision specifying that information which cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to citizens.
Shailesh Gandhi said that this dilution had turned the RTI into the “Right to Deny” Act. He questioned claims that governance has been hurt due to the RTI Act and said public decisions in a democracy ought to be open to debate.
Political reactions were equally sharp. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge accused the government of systematically weakening the RTI framework since 2014. He cited the pendency of over 26,000 RTI cases as of 2025, amendments in 2019 that gave the Centre control over the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners, and vacancies in the Central Information Commission, which he said functioned without a Chief Information Commissioner until December 2025.
Kharge also referred to claims that more than 100 RTI activists have been killed since 2014 and said the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, has not been implemented. He described the Survey’s suggestions, including a possible ministerial veto and shielding of service records, as a move to “murder” the RTI law, drawing a parallel with what he called the weakening of MGNREGA.
The Survey maintains that the intent is not to dilute the law but to align it with global practices while preserving its spirit. It frames the issue as finding a balance between openness and the space required for candid internal deliberation.
[DS]
Suggested Reading: