Were these controversial changes really necessary?
The Right to Information (RTI) is not merely a law; it is one of the most significant democratic tools that enables citizens to seek accountability from the government. The Right to Information Act, 2005, introduced by the Government of India, was designed to promote transparency, improve governance and strengthen public participation.
While states were empowered to frame procedural rules within their jurisdiction, such rules were expected to remain aligned with the spirit and objectives of the parent legislation. Against this backdrop, the Government of Maharashtra announced a set of amendments to its RTI rules on 12 June 2026, triggering widespread public discussion and debate.
The revised framework reportedly introduced provisions relating to higher fees, disclosure of purpose for seeking information, proof of citizenship requirements, restrictions concerning legal representation, and additional procedural conditions. The issue, however, is not only about what was changed but also how those changes were introduced.
When laws or rules that directly affect citizens are modified, public consultation, stakeholder engagement, and publication of draft proposals are generally regarded as important elements of good governance. Therefore, questions naturally emerged: Was there adequate consultation? Were citizen groups, RTI users, or institutional stakeholders sufficiently involved before implementation?
This is not the first time RTI-related procedural changes have generated public debate in Maharashtra. In 2012, during the tenure of then Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan, a proposal introducing a 150-word limit on RTI applications had attracted opposition from RTI activists and civil society groups. The matter subsequently entered legal scrutiny. In that context, the return of procedural restrictions after many years revived concerns among transparency advocates.
Among the recent amendments, the most debated provision was the requirement that applicants disclose the purpose for seeking information. One of the long-standing principles associated with RTI practice has been that citizens should ordinarily not be required to justify why information is being requested. Consequently, the proposal invited strong reactions from several quarters.
Significantly, on 19 June 2026, the government withdrew the requirement relating to disclosure of purpose. That reversal within seven days raised further questions. If the provision was necessary, why was it withdrawn so quickly? If it was unnecessary, why was it introduced in the first place? Was sufficient legal and administrative review undertaken before notification?
During this period, discussions also intensified following public objections and reported protest warnings from senior social activist Anna Hazare.
However, an equally important issue often receives less attention.
Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, public authorities are expected to proactively disclose key categories of information. Effective implementation of proactive disclosure could significantly reduce the need for citizens to file RTI applications.
This leads to broader governance questions. How many public authorities have fully implemented proactive disclosure obligations? How effective is record management? Are reasons for policy decisions being consistently documented and communicated?Has accountability been fixed where disclosure obligations were ignored?
At the same time, it may also be useful to evaluate the relationship between the Maharashtra State Information Commission and the government. If institutional coordination exists, an independent review could examine. How many recommendations were made by the Commission? How many were accepted by the state government? How many resulted in actual implementation?
The long-term strength of the RTI framework will not come from increasing procedural barriers but from improving transparency, strengthening records management, and expanding proactive disclosure. In a democracy, citizens seeking information should not be viewed as an administrative burden, but as participants in better governance.
Anil Galgali
RTI Activist
