RTI Act Ineffectual, Says Shadan Farasat at Justice Unplugged 2026

Justice Unplugged 2026, a significant legal conclave co-hosted by The Hindu and VIT Chennai, took place in New Delhi on February 28, 2026. The event brought together prominent jurists, senior advocates, academicians, and public intellectuals to deliberate on various facets of law, justice, and governance in India. A central and thought-provoking statement emerged from Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, who asserted that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a cornerstone of transparency in India, has largely become "ineffectual" over the past decade. Farasat, a distinguished Senior Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India with extensive experience in constitutional law and civil liberties, articulated that for practical purposes, citizens are no longer receiving information that goes against government agencies. She characterized the past ten years as a "dead phase" for the Act, contrasting it with its initially assertive nature upon enactment. This critical assessment by Farasat resonates with ongoing discussions and concerns among legal experts and civil society regarding the diminishing efficacy of the RTI Act. Several factors contribute to the perceived weakening of the RTI Act. One significant challenge stems from recent legislative amendments. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, which came into effect on November 13, 2025, introduced a substantial change by prohibiting the government from disclosing the personal data of citizens. This includes instances where an overriding public interest might otherwise justify disclosure. This prohibition has raised considerable concerns among transparency advocates, as it is seen as hindering efforts like 'social audits,' which rely on obtaining beneficiary lists for government programs through RTI requests. A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging this amendment, contending that it strikes at the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and converts a carefully balanced privacy exemption into an absolute bar, thereby disabling the functioning of the RTI Act itself. Further, the Right to Information (Amendment) Act 2019 granted the Union Government the power to determine the tenure and salaries of information commissioners, who are crucial for hearing appeals against unsatisfactory RTI responses. This amendment has sparked apprehension about potential political interference and a compromise of the independence of these commissioners, which is essential for the fair and transparent functioning of the Act. The Economic Survey 2025-26 also weighed in on the matter, recommending a "re-examination" of the RTI Act. While acknowledging the Act as a cornerstone of transparency, the Survey suggested that certain provisions might need adjustment to strike a better balance between openness and effective governance. It cautioned against using the RTI Act merely as a tool for "idle curiosity" or to "micro-manage" government functioning. Proposals included exempting confidential reports, draft comments, brainstorming notes, and service records from disclosure until they become part of the final record, and considering a narrowly defined ministerial veto, subject to parliamentary oversight, to prevent disclosures that could constrain governance. Transparency activists, however, warn that such adjustments could dilute the power of the common citizen and lead to increased secrecy. Beyond legislative changes, practical implementation issues also plague the RTI framework. There is an alarming pendency of appeals across Central and State Information Commissions, often leading to delays extending over several years. Vacancies, inadequate staffing, and inconsistent appointment practices have collectively weakened the institutional capacity, diluting the deterrent effect of the Act. Additionally, disparities in payment methods for RTI applications across states can create inequalities in access to the process. The increasing number of first appeals indicates a growing dissatisfaction among citizens with the information received from public officials. Despite these challenges, some perspectives maintain the enduring importance of the RTI Act. It remains India's most effective statutory instrument for promoting transparency, accountability, and participatory democracy, with official data indicating millions of applications filed annually, reflecting sustained public reliance. The Economic Survey itself did not call for a repeal but rather a discussion on aligning the law with good governance outcomes while preserving transparency. The Justice Unplugged 2026 conclave also delved into other critical legal topics. Discussions encompassed the current state of legal education in India, the impact of Generative AI on legal practice, the evolution of fundamental rights in the digital age, constitutional thinking, and pathways to improving legal access for all citizens. Senior legal figures, including Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and G. Viswanathan, participated, contributing to a rich dialogue on shaping the future of law and justice in the country. The event served as a crucial platform for aspiring lawyers and practitioners to engage with leading voices in the legal field, underscoring the dynamic nature of India's legal landscape. In conclusion, Shadan Farasat's statement at Justice Unplugged 2026 highlights a significant and widely discussed concern about the effectiveness of the Right to Information Act in India. While the Act is fundamentally crucial for democratic accountability, it faces multifaceted challenges from legislative changes, institutional shortcomings, and ongoing debates about its scope and application. The discussions at the conclave underscore the continuous need for vigilance and reform to ensure that the spirit of transparency and the citizen's right to know are upheld in India.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest