Economic Survey calls for re-examining RTI Act, protecting confidential records

The Economic Survey on Thursday made a case for re-examining the nearly two-decade-old Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, suggesting that certain confidential records and draft deliberations be exempted from disclosure to prevent undue constraints on governance.

While underlining that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency, accountability and citizen participation, the Survey said the law was never intended to become a tool for idle curiosity or a mechanism to micro-manage government functioning from the outside.

“Nearly two decades on, the RTI Act may need re-examination — not to dilute its spirit, but to align it with global best practices, incorporate evolving lessons, and keep it firmly anchored to its original intent,” the Survey said.

It emphasised that the purpose of the law remains to enhance democratic accountability, contain corruption and enable citizens to demand answers for decisions that affect them, but warned that excessive disclosures of internal deliberations could blunt effective decision-making.

Among the possible changes worth debating, the Survey suggested exempting brainstorming notes, working papers and draft comments from disclosure until they form part of the final decision-making record. It also proposed protecting service records, transfers and confidential staff reports from routine information requests that add little value to public interest.

Another option flagged was exploring a narrowly defined ministerial veto, subject to parliamentary oversight, to prevent disclosures that could unduly constrain governance.

“These are not prescriptions, but suggestions worth debating to ensure that the Act remains effective while also safeguarding the integrity of decision-making,” it said.

The Survey argued that transparency works best when balanced with space for candid internal discussions. If officials fear that every draft remark or half-formed idea may be disclosed, they may resort to cautious language and avoid bold thinking, thereby weakening governance.

“This is not an argument for secrecy by default. Democracy functions best when officials can deliberate freely and are then held accountable for the decisions they finally endorse, not for every preliminary thought expressed along the way,” it said.

Drawing on international experience, the Survey noted that the idea of citizens’ right to know is not uniquely Indian. Sweden pioneered the world’s first Freedom of Information law in 1766, followed by the US in 1966 and the UK in 2000.

It cited former UK prime minister Tony Blair, who later expressed regret over introducing the law, arguing that confidential discussions were essential for effective governance. The UK House of Commons Justice Committee has similarly urged wider use of exemptions to protect candid internal debate.

By global standards, the Survey said, India’s RTI regime is relatively expansive. In the US, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memoranda and financial regulation reports are exempt. Sweden shields fiscal and monetary policy and supervisory activities, while the UK exempts policy formulation and allows ministers veto powers in public interest cases. The World Bank also excludes deliberative information from disclosure.

“In contrast, India leaves far less space for such carve-outs,” the Survey said, noting that draft notes, internal correspondence and even personal records of officials often enter the public domain, sometimes with a weak link to public interest.

Unlike countries such as the US, the UK and South Africa, India has no general exemption for the deliberative process, with only Cabinet papers receiving temporary protection.

“The challenge now is to preserve openness while retaining space for candid and effective decision-making,” the Survey added, stressing that a calibrated balance between transparency and confidentiality is essential to keep the RTI Act true to its democratic purpose.