N※N

India's Top Institutions Face Transparency Scrutiny

  //business-finance.news-articles.net/content/202 .. top-institutions-face-transparency-scrutiny.html
  Published in Business and Finance on Saturday, February 14th 2026 at 4:02 GMT by ThePrint
      Locales: Delhi, INDIA

New Delhi, February 14th, 2026 - A damning new report released today by the Central Information Commission (CIC) casts a shadow over the transparency commitments of some of India's most powerful institutions. The report details alarmingly high rejection rates for Right to Information (RTI) applications submitted to the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court of India, and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The findings are prompting demands for urgent reforms and a thorough investigation into the reasons behind the consistent denial of public access to information.

The CIC's analysis, spanning the past three years (2023-2025), paints a clear picture: these entities are consistently among the top rejecters of RTI applications, significantly exceeding the national average. While the average rejection rate across all public authorities hovered around 15% in 2025, the Delhi High Court registered a rejection rate of 32%, the Supreme Court 28%, and the MHA a concerning 35%. These figures, released this morning, represent a substantial increase from 2023, where rejection rates were 25%, 20%, and 29% respectively, indicating a worsening trend.

"The Right to Information Act is a cornerstone of democratic accountability," stated CIC Commissioner Vanita Sharma during a press conference. "These high rejection rates aren't simply statistical anomalies. They represent a systemic barrier to public scrutiny and erode trust in these vital institutions. The public deserves to know how their government operates, and RTI is a crucial mechanism for achieving that."

The report doesn't explicitly detail the reasons for the rejections, but preliminary analysis suggests several potential contributing factors. Common grounds cited by the authorities include claims of information being exempt under various sections of the RTI Act - specifically, those relating to national security, trade secrets, and matters under investigation. However, the CIC notes that in many cases, the justifications provided were vague or lacked specific evidence, raising suspicions of overly broad interpretations of exemption clauses.

Legal experts suggest that the complexity of the RTI Act itself may also be playing a role. "The Act, while powerful, is open to interpretation," explains advocate and RTI activist, Rahul Verma. "Authorities often exploit ambiguities in the wording to justify withholding information. Furthermore, the lack of consistent training for Public Information Officers (PIOs) within these institutions exacerbates the problem. PIOs are often overwhelmed and lack a clear understanding of their obligations under the Act."

The MHA's high rejection rate is particularly concerning, given its crucial role in national security and law enforcement. Critics argue that the Ministry often prioritizes secrecy over transparency, invoking national security concerns to shield potentially embarrassing or controversial information from public view. Several RTI applications seeking details regarding surveillance programs, expenditure on security equipment, and investigations into alleged human rights abuses have reportedly been consistently rejected. The Supreme Court's rejection rate raises questions about the judiciary's own commitment to openness and accountability. Access to information regarding administrative procedures, case filings (excluding sensitive details), and court expenses are crucial for maintaining public faith in the justice system.

The Delhi High Court's consistent high numbers are also under intense scrutiny. Activists point to a lack of digitized records and an inefficient RTI handling system as potential bottlenecks. The sheer volume of cases handled by the court may also be contributing to the backlog and delays in responding to RTI requests.

Civil society organizations are now calling for a multi-pronged approach to address the issue. Recommendations include:

• Mandatory training for PIOs: Comprehensive and ongoing training programs for PIOs in all public authorities, with a focus on best practices in RTI compliance.
• Increased CIC oversight: Strengthening the CIC's powers to investigate and penalize public authorities that consistently violate the RTI Act.
• Digitization of records: Accelerating the digitization of government records to facilitate easier access to information.
• Simplified RTI procedures: Streamlining the process for filing and responding to RTI applications.
• Independent audits: Conducting regular independent audits of RTI compliance within key government institutions.

The CIC has announced that it will be conducting a series of hearings with representatives from the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court, and the MHA to discuss the findings of the report and formulate a plan of action. The outcome of these hearings will be critical in determining whether India's commitment to transparency is more than just rhetoric.