Op-ed: At 21, the RTI Act's duty of proactive disclosure is still widely ignored
If public authorities published what the law already requires, would citizens need to file so many RTI pleas?
Published 12 October 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Right to Information Act, 2005 came fully into force on 12 October 2005, the 120th day after its enactment on 15 June 2005. On its 21st anniversary, an op-ed in The Hindu on 12 October 2026 argues that its least-discussed duty, proactive (suo motu) disclosure under Section 4, is still poorly implemented. Section 4(1)(b) lists 17 categories of information that every public authority must publish on its own, from its functions and the powers of its officers to budgets, subsidy beneficiaries, concessions granted and the names of its Public Information Officers. The idea is that a citizen should not need to file an application for information the State is already obliged to publish.
The article relies on transparency audits, the third-party checks of Section 4 compliance that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) mandated in guidelines first issued in April 2013. According to the op-ed, only 1,446 of the 2,303 public authorities registered with the Central Information Commission (CIC) submitted their audit reports for 2024-25, and more than half of the reports submitted scored grade C or below. An independent check of department websites cited by the writer found many without the latest audit report or without information the Act mandates. Earlier government data show the scale of the problem: in 2020-21, only 754 of 2,275 public authorities had their suo motu disclosures audited, the Rajya Sabha was told in April 2022.
The op-ed argues that weak proactive disclosure pushes citizens to file more applications, which adds to pendency at the CIC and State Information Commissions, so better compliance with Section 4 would ease the burden on the whole RTI system. A separate study of the CIC's 2024-25 annual report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative found that RTI applications to Central public authorities rose 2.52% over the previous year and that about 40% of first appeals were pending at the end of the year. Audit submissions have improved year on year, but the Act prescribes penalties for delays and refusals in answering applications under Section 20, not for failing to publish what Section 4 requires, which leaves proactive disclosure with weak enforcement.
Prelims facts
- The RTI Act was enacted on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005, its 120th day.
- Section 4(1)(b) lists 17 categories of information, clauses (i) to (xvii), that every public authority must publish suo motu.
- The op-ed says only 1,446 of 2,303 registered public authorities submitted transparency audit reports to the CIC for 2024-25.
- Third-party audit of proactive disclosure was mandated by DoPT guidelines first issued in April 2013 and amended in 2016 and 2019.
- Under Section 20(1), an Information Commission can fine a defaulting PIO ₹250 a day, up to a total of ₹25,000.
Quick recall
- When did the RTI Act, 2005 come fully into force?
- 12 October 2005, the 120th day after its enactment on 15 June 2005.
- How many categories of information does Section 4(1)(b) require public authorities to publish suo motu?
- 17, in clauses (i) to (xvii).
- What does 'suo motu disclosure' mean?
- Publishing information on one's own initiative, without a request.
- When were DoPT guidelines mandating third-party audit of proactive disclosure first issued?
- April 2013 (amended in 2016 and 2019).
- According to the op-ed, how many public authorities submitted transparency audit reports for 2024-25?
- 1,446 of 2,303 registered with the CIC.
- How many public authorities had suo motu disclosures audited in 2020-21?
- 754 of 2,275 (Rajya Sabha reply, April 2022).
- What is the maximum penalty an Information Commission can impose on a PIO under Section 20(1)?
- ₹250 a day, up to a total of ₹25,000.
- Which section requires public authorities to disseminate information in local language and electronic format where possible?
- Section 4(4).
Prelims practice question
Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the obligation of public authorities to publish certain categories of information on their own, without any request, is contained in:
- Section 4
- Section 6
- Section 8
- Section 19
Show answer
Answer: (a) Section 4. Section 4 contains the obligations of public authorities, including suo motu disclosure of 17 categories under Section 4(1)(b). Section 6 deals with the request for information, Section 8 with exemptions and Section 19 with appeals.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Transparency and accountability in governance through the Right to Information.
- How to use this
Argue that Section 4 makes accountability an institutional duty, not just a citizen's right, and show the compliance gap with audit data.
- Section 4(1)(b) obliges every public authority to publish 17 categories, including budgets, subsidy beneficiaries and officers' remuneration, without any request.
- Only 754 of 2,275 authorities had disclosures audited in 2020-21; an October 2026 op-ed says 1,446 of 2,303 filed audits for 2024-25.
- How to use this
Draw a parallel: like Citizen's Charters, proactive disclosure fails without audit and enforcement, so suggest linking both to performance review.
- DoPT made third-party transparency audits mandatory in 2013, yet over half of 2024-25 reports scored grade C or below, per the op-ed.
- Unlike delays in replying to RTI requests, non-compliance with Section 4 carries no direct penalty.
The question is about the 2019 amendment and the independence of Information Commissions; the story touches it only through the CIC's role in receiving audit reports.
Mains practice question
Proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act was meant to make information requests the exception rather than the rule. Assess how far this goal has been met and suggest measures to strengthen it. (150 words)
Model answer
Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 requires every public authority to publish 17 categories of information on its own, so that citizens need not file applications for routine information.
How far the goal has been met
- Third-party transparency audits, mandated by DoPT guidelines of 2013, have grown: only 754 of 2,275 authorities were audited in 2020-21.
- Yet an op-ed on the Act's 21st anniversary says just 1,446 of 2,303 authorities filed audit reports for 2024-25, and over half scored grade C or below.
- Weak disclosure feeds rising applications and pendency; a CHRI study of the CIC's 2024-25 report found about 40% of first appeals pending.
Measures
- Make audit results public and link them to departmental performance reviews.
- Give the Information Commissions power to direct compliance with Section 4, and track it in the annual report under Section 25.
Proactive disclosure is the cheapest form of transparency; enforcing it would reduce the load on the entire RTI machinery.
The basics
Why this matters
Most people know the RTI Act as a way to ask the government a question. Its drafters intended something more ambitious: a government that publishes so much on its own that questions become rare. That duty sits in Section 4, and 21 years on, it is the part of the law that works least well.
Two routes to information
The Act gives citizens two routes. The first is demand-driven: a citizen files an application and the Public Information Officer (PIO) must reply within a time limit, with appeals to a First Appellate Authority and then to an Information Commission. The second is supply-driven: under Section 4 of the RTI Act, the authority publishes information without being asked.
- Citizen must know what to ask
- Each request costs officials time
- Delays can lead to penalties under Section 20
- Information is available to all at once
- Reduces the number of applications
- No direct penalty for non-compliance
How compliance is checked
Since April 2013, DoPT guidelines have required public authorities to get their Section 4 disclosures checked through a Transparency audit of public authorities. The reports are submitted to the Central Information Commission. Coverage has improved, from 754 of 2,275 authorities audited in 2020-21, but the op-ed on the Act's 21st anniversary says only 1,446 of 2,303 registered authorities submitted reports for 2024-25.
Why weak disclosure matters
When an authority does not publish its budgets, decisions or beneficiary lists, citizens file applications instead. That raises the workload of PIOs and, when replies are late or refused, the backlog of appeals at the Commissions. A study of the CIC's 2024-25 annual report found about 40% of first appeals pending at year-end. The op-ed's argument is that fixing Section 4 is the cheapest way to cut that load.
- 1Authorities do not publish what Section 4 requires.
- 2Citizens file RTI requests for routine information.
- 3PIOs and appellate authorities are overloaded.
- 4Appeals pile up at Information Commissions, and trust in the system falls.
The bigger picture
The Structure of the RTI Act, 2005 places Section 4 first among the duties of public authorities, before any request is made. Its weak enforcement shows how a law's preventive parts can lag behind its remedies.
Go deeper
In one line: On the RTI Act's 21st anniversary, an op-ed in The Hindu argues that public authorities still largely ignore their duty to publish information on their own under Section 4.
Why it matters for UPSC
RTI appears in GS2 (transparency and accountability), GS4 (probity and information sharing) and Prelims (provisions and bodies). Section 4 is often missed in answers that focus only on applications and appeals.
The core idea
Section 4 of the RTI Act obliges every public authority to publish 17 categories of information without being asked. Compliance is meant to be checked by a Transparency audit of public authorities, whose reports go to the Central Information Commission. In the Structure of the RTI Act, 2005, this proactive route is supposed to come first, with individual requests and appeals as a back-up. The op-ed's point is that the back-up has become the main road.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 15 June 2005: Act enacted; 12 October 2005: fully in force.
- 17 categories under Section 4(1)(b).
- April 2013: DoPT guidelines mandate third-party audit.
- 2020-21: 754 of 2,275 authorities audited.
- 2024-25: 1,446 of 2,303 submitted audit reports (as cited in the op-ed).
- Penalty under Section 20(1): ₹250 a day, up to ₹25,000.
Where to go next
- Section 4 of the RTI Act: what must be published, and in what form.
- Transparency audit of public authorities: how compliance is measured.
- Central Information Commission: the apex body under the Act for the Centre.
- Structure of the RTI Act, 2005: how the pieces of the law fit together.
Go deeper: why proactive disclosure lags, and what would fix it
The design gap. The Act sets clear timelines and penalties for answering requests, but Section 4 of the RTI Act has no comparable penalty. A PIO who delays a reply risks a fine; an authority that never publishes its budget or beneficiary lists faces mainly a lower audit grade. Critics argue that this asymmetry explains why reactive transparency works better than proactive transparency.
Measurement. The Transparency audit of public authorities has improved coverage over the years, but the op-ed says that in 2024-25 roughly one in three registered authorities still did not submit a report, and over half of those that did scored grade C or below. Submissions have risen over the years, but the op-ed's point is that a law in force for two decades should not still have such large gaps.
The pendency link. The Central Information Commission and State Commissions face large backlogs. A Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative study of the CIC's 2024-25 annual report found about 40% of first appeals pending at year-end and noted gaps in the data reported. If more information were published under Section 4, fewer applications and appeals would arise.
Wider debates. The Structure of the RTI Act, 2005 has itself changed: the 2019 amendment let the Centre prescribe the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners, which critics said weakened their independence. In that setting, enforcing proactive disclosure through the Commissions becomes harder.
Possible reforms. Publish audit grades openly, give Commissions clear power to direct Section 4 compliance, tie disclosure to departmental performance reviews, and use open data formats so that published information is actually usable.
Section 4 of the RTI Act
The list of what every public authority must publish without being asked.
In one line: Section 4 sets out the duties of public authorities, including maintaining records and publishing 17 categories of information suo motu.
What it requires
Section 4(1)(a) asks authorities to catalogue and index records and computerise those suitable for it. Section 4(1)(b) lists 17 categories to be published, including the authority's organisation and functions, powers of officers, decision-making procedure, rules and manuals, a directory of officers, their monthly remuneration, budgets, subsidy programmes and beneficiaries, recipients of concessions and permits, and PIO details. Section 4(1)(c) requires publishing relevant facts when framing important policies, and 4(1)(d) requires giving reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Form of disclosure
Section 4(2) asks for constant efforts at suo motu disclosure, so the public needs minimum resort to requests. Section 4(3) and 4(4) require wide dissemination, considering cost-effectiveness and local language, and electronic format where possible.
Where to go next
Transparency audit of public authorities
How compliance with Section 4 is measured, and why coverage is still patchy.
In one line: A transparency audit is an external check of whether a public authority has published what Section 4 requires.
Origin
DoPT guidelines on implementing Section 4, issued in April 2013 and amended in 2016 and 2019, mandated a third-party audit of proactive disclosures. The CIC prepared software to help public authorities arrange these audits, and the reports are submitted to it.
The record
Government data given to the Rajya Sabha in April 2022 showed 1,159 of 2,079 authorities audited in 2017-18, 838 of 2,145 in 2018-19 and 754 of 2,275 in 2020-21. The Hindu op-ed of 12 October 2026 says 1,446 of 2,303 registered authorities submitted reports for 2024-25.
Why it is in the news
The op-ed argues that coverage and quality remain low, with more than half of submitted reports graded C or below, and that this feeds pendency in the RTI system.
Where to go next
Central Information Commission
The body that hears second appeals for the Centre and receives transparency audit reports.
In one line: The Central Information Commission is a statutory body under the RTI Act that hears second appeals and complaints concerning Central public authorities.
Structure and powers
It consists of a Chief Information Commissioner and up to ten Information Commissioners, appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. It can impose penalties on PIOs under Section 20(1) of ₹250 a day, up to ₹25,000. Under Section 25, it prepares an annual report on the implementation of the Act, which is laid before Parliament.
Why it is in the news
The CIC receives transparency audit reports. Its 2024-25 annual report has been analysed for pendency, and the op-ed says weak Section 4 compliance increases the load on it.
Where to go next
Structure of the RTI Act, 2005
How disclosure, requests, appeals and penalties fit together in one law.
In one line: The RTI Act combines proactive disclosure, a request-and-reply system, exemptions, a two-tier appeal system and penalties.
The building blocks
- Section 4: duties of public authorities, including suo motu disclosure.
- Section 6: how a citizen requests information.
- Section 8: exemptions from disclosure.
- Section 19: first appeal within the authority, then second appeal to an Information Commission.
- Section 20: penalties on PIOs.
- Section 25: annual reports on implementation.
Key changes
The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 allowed the Central Government to prescribe the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners. Critics said this reduced their independence; the government said it brought statutory bodies in line with constitutional ones.
Where to go next
Take the 12 October 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers