Maharashtra's Proposed RTI Rule Changes Draw Sharp Criticism from Transparency Advocates

The Maharashtra government's proposed overhaul of Right to Information (RTI) rules has triggered widespread opposition from transparency activists, lawyers, and civil society groups, who argue the changes fundamentally undermine public accountability and access to government information. The new rules introduce three controversial measures: higher fees for information requests, mandatory submission of proof of Indian citizenship, and a requirement that applicants disclose the purpose behind each RTI application.

Critics argue these provisions create systematic barriers to transparency. Activists warn that requiring citizens to justify why they seek information strikes at the core of the RTI Act, which for nearly two decades has allowed ordinary citizens to question public authorities without having to explain their motives. This requirement, they contend, could enable officials to scrutinize applicants' intentions and arbitrarily reject requests, while also deterring potential whistleblowers from coming forward. The citizenship proof clause is viewed as adding unnecessary bureaucratic layers, particularly since the RTI Act already restricts applications to Indian citizens, while the proposed fee increases would disproportionately affect citizens from marginalized and low-income backgrounds.

Activists have characterized the proposed rules as a step backward for democratic accountability, warning that the measures contradict the fundamental purpose of the RTI Act, which has historically exposed corruption, inefficiency, and misuse of public funds across India. Civil society groups have accused the Maharashtra government of erecting barriers around information at a time when public scrutiny of governance, expenditure, and decision-making is increasingly vital. Legal experts are examining whether the proposed provisions can withstand constitutional challenges and whether they are compatible with the spirit and letter of the RTI Act.

The controversy reflects broader tensions between government information control and citizens' rights to transparency, with opponents describing the proposed changes as an assault on one of India's most powerful tools for public accountability.