Objects, reasons and salient features of the RTI Act, 2005 — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Objects, reasons and salient features of the RTI Act, 2005

The RTI Act’s long title says it is an Act “to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens”. Read that phrase carefully — practical regime. Parliament was not announcing a new right (the courts had done that); it was building the practical machine to deliver it: an officer to ask, a clock to run, a commission to appeal to, and a penalty to bite.

Objects and reasons — why the Act was made

The objects are set out in the Preamble and Statement of Objects and Reasons. In plain terms, the Act exists to:

set up a practical mechanism for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities;
promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority;
contain corruption and hold governments accountable to the governed;
harmonise the citizen’s right to know with competing public interests — efficient government, optimum use of limited resources, and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information (this harmonisation is why exemptions exist).

The salient features — the machine in nine parts

A full-marks answer lists and briefly explains the Act’s main features. Learn these nine.

A. A citizen’s right (ss. 2(j), 3)

Every citizen has the right to information held by or under the control of a public authority — no reasons need be given.

B. Public authorities and PIOs (ss. 2(h), 5)

Every public authority must designate Public Information Officers (PIOs) and Assistant PIOs to receive and answer requests.

C. Suo motu disclosure (s. 4)

Public authorities must publish a large body of information on their own, without waiting to be asked.

D. A simple procedure with time-limits (ss. 6, 7)

A written or electronic request, a small fee, a reply within 30 days (48 hours where life or liberty is involved).

E. Exemptions, but narrow ones (ss. 8, 9)

A closed list of exempt categories, subject to a public-interest override (s. 8(2)) and severability (s. 10).

F. A two-tier appeal (s. 19)

First appeal to a senior officer; second appeal to the Information Commission.

G. Independent Information Commissions (ss. 12–17)

The Central and State Information Commissions — the watchdogs, outside the public authority.

H. Penalties (s. 20)

A defaulting PIO can be fined ₹250 per day up to ₹25,000, plus disciplinary action.

I. An overriding effect (s. 22)

The Act prevails over the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any other inconsistent law.

Frame all of this with one sentence: the Act is machinery delivering a pre-existing constitutional right. That framing is the mark of a top answer.

Long title, RTI Act, 2005: “An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority…”

In Simple Terms: The Act does not invent the right; it makes the right work — who you ask, how fast they must answer, what they may refuse, whom you appeal to, and what happens to an officer who obstructs you.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — objects vs features

Facts. The question asks for “objects, reasons and salient features”. Candidates often blur the two.

Rule. Objects/reasons = why the Act was made (transparency, accountability, containing corruption, harmonising competing interests). Salient features = how it does it (the nine-part machine above).

Apply. Answer in two clearly separated halves — first the objects from the Preamble, then the numbered features with section numbers — so the examiner can tick both.

Conclusion. Two labelled halves, each with authority, is a clean full-marks structure.

flowchart TD
    A["RTI Act 2005 — a practical regime"]
    A --> B["Right of every citizen (ss. 2(j), 3)"]
    A --> C["PIOs + suo motu s. 4 (ss. 5, 4)"]
    A --> D["Request + time-limits (ss. 6, 7)"]
    A --> E["Exemptions, narrowly read (ss. 8, 9, 10)"]
    A --> F["Appeals + Commissions (ss. 12-17, 19)"]
    A --> G["Penalty + override (ss. 20, 22)"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E,F,G box;

Case Laws

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — the Act’s object is transparency and accountability, but it must be balanced against efficiency and the fiduciary/exempt categories; not a tool to paralyse administration.
Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank v. State of Kerala (2013) — the Act’s reach is defined by “public authority”; its objects do not stretch to purely private bodies.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics