The Right to Information Act, 2005

Before 2005, an Indian citizen had no legal right to ask the government why a road wasn’t built, or where a subsidy actually went. The Right to Information Act changed that. It gave every citizen an enforceable right to demand documents, file notes, and records from public authorities. And it didn’t come from a government committee — it grew out of a grassroots campaign fought over ration cards and wage registers in rural Rajasthan.

MCQ Questions

POLITY0157

The Right to Information Act

From a village public hearing to a Supreme Court verdict on the Chief Justice’s own office.

1990s, Rajasthan

MKSS’s Jan Sunwais

Aruna Roy’s Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan holds public hearings demanding access to wage and ration records.

12 October 2005

RTI Act comes into force

Passed by Parliament in May, assented to in June, effective nationwide from 12 October 2005.

13 November 2019

CJI’s office ruled a public authority

The Supreme Court holds, 3:2, that the Chief Justice of India’s office itself falls under the RTI Act.

2019

RTI Amendment Act

Removes Information Commissioners’ fixed 5-year tenure and statutory salary, handing both to the Central Government.

The pattern: a law built to make the state answerable to citizens was itself shaped by a grassroots campaign. It was then tested against the judiciary’s own opacity. Later, its enforcing body’s independence was narrowed by the very government it holds accountable.

⇩ Download as image

Indian Polity and Constitutionmcqquestion.com

Must Know

• Parliament passed the Right to Information Act in May 2005. It received presidential assent on 15 June 2005, and came into force nationwide on 12 October 2005.
• The Act gives every Indian citizen the right to request information from a “public authority.” This means any government body, or a body substantially funded by the government.
• A Public Information Officer (PIO) must ordinarily respond within 30 days. If the request concerns a person’s life or liberty, the deadline shortens to 48 hours.
• If the PIO refuses or misses the deadline, the applicant can file a first appeal. This goes to a senior officer in the same department. A second appeal then goes to the Central or State Information Commission.
• The Act is organised into 6 chapters and 31 sections, plus two schedules. It covers citizens’ rights, public authorities’ obligations, the Information Commissions, and appeals and penalties.
• A PIO who unreasonably delays or refuses information can be fined up to ₹250 per day of delay, capped at ₹25,000.

Good to Know

• The RTI Act traces back to a grassroots campaign in Rajasthan, not to a government-appointed committee. Activist Aruna Roy co-founded the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in 1990.
• Starting in 1994, MKSS held public hearings, called Jan Sunwais, where villagers cross-checked official wage and ration records against what they had actually received. This exposed real corruption and built the case for a legal right to information.
• Section 8 of the Act lists exemptions — information that need not be disclosed. These include material affecting ongoing investigations, Cabinet papers, and personal information unrelated to any public activity.
• Section 24 exempts 27 intelligence and security organisations from the Act entirely, though even they must disclose information about corruption and human rights violations.
• Exemptions aren’t absolute. A public authority can still release exempted information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm from withholding it.
• Any information about an event 20 or more years old must be disclosed. This holds even if the information would otherwise fall under an exemption. For more on the appeals body itself, see Polity0071 — Central Information Commission.

Test Yourself

Please wait…

1. The Right to Information Act, passed by Parliament in May 2005, came into force nationwide on which date?

15 June 2005

26 January 2006

12 October 2005

1 April 2005

 Loading…

 

Great to Know

• On 13 November 2019, a five-judge Supreme Court bench ruled on this question. By a 3:2 majority, it held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is itself a “public authority” under the RTI Act. This meant the judiciary’s own opacity became testable, under the same law it interprets for everyone else.
• The 2019 RTI Amendment Act changed how Information Commissioners are appointed and paid. Before the amendment, their tenure ran up to 5 years or age 65. Their salary was fixed by law, at a level matching the Election Commission. After the amendment, the Central Government sets both tenure and salary through its own rules.
• Critics argue this creates a structural conflict. The body meant to force transparency on the government now depends on that same government. It depends on the government for how long it serves and how much it earns — a “carrot and stick” dynamic that can discourage bold disclosure orders.