Maharashtra’s New RTI Rules Spark Outrage And Raise Fears Of Assault On Transparency

Proposed changes to the state's information laws, including mandatory citizenship proof and higher fees, have triggered a firestorm among activists who warn of a widening gap in government accountability.

The Right to Information (RTI) movement, which once found its strongest pulse in Maharashtra, is currently facing a systemic crisis. As the state government pushes ahead with a controversial overhaul of RTI rules—demanding proof of citizenship, disclosure of the purpose behind queries, and higher application fees—the administrative wall between the citizen and the state appears to be thickening. These measures, critics argue, are not merely bureaucratic tweaks but a direct assault on transparency that threatens to dismantle the efficacy of a law designed to hold power to account.

A System Under Strain

The timing of these changes is particularly incendiary. The state’s transparency infrastructure is already buckling under a massive backlog of over 98,000 pending appeals and complaints. Activists who have spent years navigating this labyrinth report that hearings for cases filed as far back as 2021 are only now being conducted. By the time a case is heard, officials are often transferred or retired, rendering the process of fixing accountability nearly impossible. For citizens like Santhosh Jadhav, who recently sought information on the Ladki Behan Yojana, the reality is a "vicious cycle" of filing an RTI just to track the status of another, only to be met with months or years of silence.

The Cost of Information

The government’s decision to increase fees and require justifications for applications has drawn sharp rebukes from civil society. For nearly two decades, the RTI Act functioned on the principle that a citizen need not explain their motive to verify public expenditure. By forcing applicants to disclose their reasons, critics warn the state is creating a tool for "motive-scrutiny" that could intimidate whistle-blowers and provide officials with a pretext for arbitrary rejections. Furthermore, the mandatory citizenship proof clause is being viewed as a "solution in search of a problem," adding a layer of red tape that disproportionately harms low-income and marginalised groups.

The Bigger Picture: Why It Matters

This latest push reflects a broader, unsettling trend in governance where "candidacy" and "efficiency" are increasingly pitted against the right to know. While the Economic Survey 2025–26 has suggested a "re-examination" of the Act to protect internal deliberations, experts maintain that transparency acts as a catalyst for better policy, not a hindrance. The state’s recent admission that its online portal remained defunct for over a decade due to "limited server capacity"—only acting after media pressure—highlights a culture of neglect. When technical glitches and complex rules are used as shields, the democratic safeguard of the RTI is effectively neutralized, leaving the public with less oversight on decisions that shape their daily lives.

A Path to Reform or Regression?

The debate has moved beyond mere procedural disagreement. While the government claims these upgrades are intended to "futureproof" the system, activists see a pattern of shrinking space for public scrutiny. If the state continues to prioritize opacity over openness, the landmark Act risks becoming a relic. To restore faith, transparency advocates are pushing for the appointment of more information commissioners and a robust, fully functional digital infrastructure, rather than the introduction of new barriers that make the simple act of asking a question an expensive and arduous journey.