As the RTI Act turns 22, fresh data reveals modest growth in public use alongside persistent gaps in transparency and accountability.

The Right to Information Act, 2005, completed 22 years of implementation this June, with its application and appeal provisions kicking in from October 2005. While the volume of RTI requests under the Union Government continues to grow, a deep analysis of the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) Annual Report for 2024-25 by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) points to mixed trends – improvements in some areas alongside worrying inconsistencies in reporting, rejections, and appeal disposal.

Compiled by CHRI Director Venkatesh Nayak, the study examines data from 53 ministries, two independent departments (Atomic Energy and Space), 12 key public authorities, and Union Territories. The accompanying Excel dataset and detailed report highlight both progress and shortcomings.

Questionable Compliance Claims

According to the RTI Online Portal, 2,914 public authorities are registered to handle digital RTI applications and appeals. Yet the CIC claims 100 per cent compliance based on returns from only 2,303 public authorities in 2024-25 (up from 2,298 the previous year).

“This claim is open to doubt,” Nayak notes. “Surely more than 600 public authorities could not have been added to the portal since the report’s publication.” For instance, the union territory of Ladakh has submitted no data since its creation in 2019, despite active RTI users in the region.

Rising RTI Filings, Shifting Burden

A total of 17.95 lakh RTI applications were received across reporting public authorities in 2024-25 – a 2.52 per cent increase over 17.50 lakh in 2023-24. Excluding UTs, the growth for the Union Government stands at 1.26 per cent. Compared to the COVID-affected 2020-21 (13.33 lakh applications), the rise is a healthy 34 per cent.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (65 reporting PAs) topped the list with 2.54 lakh applications, overtaking the Finance Ministry (over 200 PAs, 2.20 lakh). The top-5 ministries – Corporate Affairs, Finance, Railways, Education, and Defence – represent just 25 per cent of reporting authorities but handled over 51.5 per cent of all RTIs. The top-10 ministries accounted for more than two-thirds of filings.

Backlogs Persist Despite Some Gains

The backlog of pending applications from the previous year rose 3.03 per cent. However, the Corporate Affairs Ministry dramatically reduced its backlog from 12,413 to 1,619. Increases were noted in the Indian Air Force (+2,999), PMO (+282), Election Commission of India (+168), CIC (+101), and NITI Aayog (+71). Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir UTs also saw notable rises in new filings.

Surge in Transfers, Drop in Fee Collection

Transfers of RTI applications between public authorities jumped nearly 18 per cent to 2.80 lakh. The Cabinet Secretariat transferred over half (51.66 per cent) of its received applications. Application fee collection fell 6.15 per cent and additional fees by 4.21 per cent, even as Corporate Affairs saw a 13 per cent rise in volume but a 31 per cent drop in fees collected.

Penalty collection figures remain puzzling. The CIC’s narrative mentions Rs. 1.57 lakh imposed (Rs. 99,815 realised), but the aggregated data table shows only Rs. 453. Several ministries reported token amounts far below the Rs. 250 minimum – raising questions about accurate reporting.

Disposal Trends and Workload Realities

Public authorities replied to 13.81 lakh RTIs in 2024-25, down 3.46 per cent from 14.30 lakh the previous year. With more CPIOs appointed, the average expected annual workload per CPIO dropped slightly to 63.02 (from 63.88), and actual replies averaged 49.85 per CPIO (excluding UTs). Monthly figures remain low – around 4-5 cases per CPIO.

Rejections: Low Rate, High ‘Others’ Category

Rejections stood at roughly 3 per cent (58,501 per CIC claim; 57,985 per detailed exemption tables used for analysis). Nearly 35 per cent of rejections fell under unspecified “others” – slightly down from 36.47 per cent the prior year. Finance Ministry public authorities accounted for over 36 per cent of total rejections, followed by Home Affairs (12.71 per cent) and Defence (8.51 per cent). Together, these three contributed nearly 58 per cent. Ministries like Cooperation, Panchayati Raj, and others reported zero rejections.

National security exemptions under Section 8(1)(a) halved to 1,008 cases. Privacy-related Section 8(1)(j) rose to 38.69 per cent of permissible exemptions. Indian Army CPIOs invoked 8(1)(a) only once in 2024-25 (60 times previously), with most permissible exemptions relating to personal privacy.

ECI Reports Zero Rejections – But RTI Experiences Tell Another Story

The Election Commission of India reported zero rejections for both 2024-25 and 2023-24. However, Nayak’s own RTI applications paint a different picture.

In one July 2024 application seeking lists of expenditure-sensitive constituencies/pockets and Expenditure Observer reports for the Lok Sabha elections, the ECI invoked Section 7(9) (disproportionate diversion of resources) for items 1-2, Section 8(1)(g) for Observer reports, and stated it did not hold certain consolidated seizure data.

A November 2024 RTI seeking Index Cards for Lok Sabha, Haryana, and J&K elections received similar treatment: Section 7(9) for Lok Sabha (citing approximately 700 cards), and unavailability for state assemblies.

“These do not count as rejections for the ECI in their statistics,” Nayak points out, highlighting a potential gap between reported data and ground reality.

First Appeals: High Dissatisfaction, Variable Disposal

First appeals (1.86 lakh) were 2.5 times the rejections, signalling dissatisfaction. Disposal reached 1.12 lakh (60.39 per cent), up in absolute numbers but down percentage-wise. Finance, Education, Railways, Defence, and Home Affairs handled over half of appeals.

The number of reported FAAs dropped sharply (47.15 per cent), nearly doubling average workload to 9.85 cases per FAA per year. Pendency stood at nearly 40 per cent. Poor disposal rates were seen at Supreme Court (0.67 per cent), ECI (1.88 percent), CAG (2.75 per cent), and PMO (6.15 per cent). In contrast, the President’s Secretariat and CIC performed strongly.

Call for Stronger Oversight

Nayak concludes: “The CIC does not appear to have deeply examined the data submitted by public authorities… After 21 years, the CIC must redefine its role from being a mere accountant of RTI statistics to that of an auditor of performance.”

He urges academic studies on what works and what hinders implementation, noting that several ministries have shown proactive disposal while others lag. “This law… was expected to be a game changer. The wait for the game to change has been two decades long.”

The full CHRI report and dataset provide granular ministry-wise and key-authority insights, offering a valuable resource for RTI activists, researchers, and policymakers. As the Act enters its third decade, bridging the gap between statistics and real transparency remains the central challenge.