ManikantX

It also said that the RTI (Right to Information) Act 2005 was never intended as a tool for idle curiosity, nor as a mechanism to micro-manage the government from the outside.

Its purpose is far higher, and the law itself makes that clear, it said.

The law seeks to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, to contain corruption, and to enhance people's participation in the democratic process.

"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.

A few possible adjustments that could be worth exploring in the law include exempting brainstorming notes, working papers, and draft comments until they form part of the final record of decision-making, the survey said.

Another option could be to protect service records, transfers, and confidential staff reports from casual requests that add little value to the 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.

It added that these are not prescriptions, but suggestions worth debating to ensure that the Act remains effective while also safeguarding the integrity of decision-making.

The law, it said, is best understood not as an end in itself, but as a means to strengthen democracy.

"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 idea of citizens' right to know is not uniquely Indian.

According to the Survey, Sweden pioneered it with the world's first Freedom of Information Law (FOIA) in 1766. The US enacted its FOIA in 1966, and the UK followed in 2000.

Interestingly, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair later admitted he regretted introducing it, not because he opposed accountability, but because he felt governance itself suffered: "You can't run a government without being able to have confidential discussions with people on issues of profound importance." The UK House of Commons Justice Committee (2012-13) reached a similar conclusion, urging wider use of exemptions to protect candid internal debate.

The global experience suggests that transparency works best when paired with room for candid discussion, it said.

"By global standards, India's RTI Act is relatively expansive," the survey added.

In the US, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memos, and financial regulation reports are exempt from disclosure.

Similarly, Sweden protects fiscal and monetary policy, supervisory activities, and the economic interests of institutions under its secrecy provisions.

The UK also exempts policy formulation where disclosure may harm the public interest, with ministers retaining veto powers even against orders of courts or commissions.

And the World Bank excludes deliberative information and administrative matters from its disclosure policy.

"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 the US, the UK, or South Africa, which explicitly shield policy deliberations and draft documents, India has no general "deliberative process" exemption.

"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.

Combined with a strong public-interest override that can compel disclosure even of exempt material, this makes India's RTI regime particularly broad.