Economic Survey calls for re-examining RTI Act to safeguard confidential deliberations

The Economic Survey on Thursday argued for a fresh look at the nearly 20-year-old Right to Information (RTI) Act, proposing that confidential reports, draft observations and internal deliberations be kept outside the scope of public disclosure, as existing provisions may hinder effective governance.

The survey noted that the RTI Act, enacted in 2005, was not designed to satisfy casual curiosity or to allow external micro-management of the government. Instead, it emphasised that the law has a far more significant objective, clearly laid out in its framework.

According to the survey, the Act aims to improve transparency and accountability across public authorities, curb corruption, and deepen citizens’ participation in democratic processes. “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,” it said.

Among the changes worth discussing, the survey suggested withholding brainstorming notes, working papers and draft comments from disclosure until they become part of the final decision-making record. It also proposed shielding service-related matters such as transfers, confidential staff reports and personal records from routine information requests that may not serve a meaningful public interest.

“A third might be to explore a narrowly defined ministerial veto, subject to parliamentary oversight, to guard against disclosures that could unduly constrain governance,” the survey said. Clarifying its position, the survey stressed that these ideas are not firm recommendations but points for public debate, aimed at ensuring the law remains effective while protecting the integrity of internal decision-making.

The RTI Act, it added, should be viewed as a tool to strengthen democratic governance rather than an objective in itself. “The wiser path is to keep it anchored to this original aim - enabling citizens to demand accountability for decisions that affect them, while also ensuring that space for candid deliberation and respect for privacy remain protected,” it said.

“That balance between openness and candour is what will keep the RTI Act true to its purpose,” it added. The survey observed that the concept of citizens’ right to information is not exclusive to India. Sweden was the first country to introduce a Freedom of Information Law (FOIA) in 1766, followed by the United States in 1966 and the United Kingdom in 2000.

Notably, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair later acknowledged his regret over introducing the law, citing concerns that governance had suffered as a result. “You can't run a government without being able to have confidential discussions with people on issues of profound importance.” A similar view was expressed by the UK House of Commons Justice Committee in 2012–13, which recommended broader use of exemptions to safeguard frank internal discussions.

Drawing from international experience, the survey said transparency delivers the best outcomes when accompanied by adequate room for confidential deliberation. “By global standards, India's RTI Act is relatively expansive,” the survey added.

In the US, exemptions apply to internal personnel rules, inter-agency communications and certain financial regulation documents. Sweden protects areas such as fiscal and monetary policy, supervisory functions and institutional economic interests under secrecy laws.

The UK, too, allows exemptions for policy formulation where disclosure could harm public interest, with ministers empowered to override even court or commission orders. Similarly, the World Bank excludes deliberative and administrative material from its disclosure framework.

“India, in contrast, leaves far less space for such carve-outs. Draft notes, internal correspondence, and even personal records of officials often enter the public domain, sometimes even where the link to public interest is weak,” it said.

Unlike countries such as the US, UK and South Africa, which explicitly protect policy deliberations and draft material, India lacks a general exemption for the deliberative process. “File notings, internal opinions, and draft notes fall squarely within the Act's definition of information, with only Cabinet papers protected temporarily until a decision is made,” the survey said.

When combined with a strong public-interest override that can mandate disclosure even in exempt cases, India’s RTI framework becomes particularly wide-ranging. “The challenge now is to preserve this openness while also retaining space for candid and effective decision-making,” it added.

The survey further warned that the possibility of drafts and informal remarks becoming public could discourage officials from expressing bold or innovative ideas.

“The candour needed for effective governance is blunted. This is not an argument for secrecy by default. Rather, democracy functions best when officials can deliberate freely and are then held accountable for the decisions they finally endorse, not for every half-formed thought expressed along the way,” it said.