Examine the safeguards in the RTI Act against misuse of exemptions, and suggest reforms to strengthen legislative and judicial oversight of such notifications.

The RTI Act, 2005 puts into practice the right to know that the Supreme Court read into Article 19(1)(a). It has two kinds of exemption. Section 8 exempts categories of information, and Section 24 exempts whole organisations. Both are meant as narrow carve-outs. The Act has safeguards against their misuse, but oversight of exemption notifications mostly comes after the fact.

Safeguards in the Act

• Narrow scope: only intelligence and security organisations can be notified, by the Centre under Section 24(2) or by States under Section 24(4) [1].
• Corruption and human-rights proviso: exempted organisations must still disclose information on allegations of corruption and human-rights violations. Human-rights information needs Information Commission approval and must be given within 45 days [1].
• Legislative laying: every notification must be laid before Parliament or the State Legislature under Sections 24(3) and 24(5) [1].
• Public-interest override: Section 8(2) allows disclosure when the public interest outweighs harm to protected interests [1].
• Appeals and penalties: applicants can appeal to Information Commissions (Section 19), and erring Public Information Officers can be penalised (Section 20) [1]. The writ jurisdiction of constitutional courts also remains available.

Gaps in practice

• The Act does not define "security organisation". The Second Schedule already lists investigating agencies such as the CBI and NIA [1].
• Laying is post-facto, so a notification takes effect before legislators or citizens have seen it. A recent Tamil Nadu order exempting its law-and-order department showed this. It was withdrawn only after public protest.
• The 2019 amendment let the Centre set Information Commissioners' tenure and pay, which weakens the body that hears appeals [2].

Reforms: legislative oversight

• Write a statutory definition of intelligence and security organisations into the Act.
• A notification should take effect only after publication and laying, with reasons recorded. It should be examined by the Committee on Subordinate Legislation.
• Add a sunset clause requiring periodic review of the Second Schedule and of State lists.

Reforms: judicial and quasi-judicial oversight

• Empower Information Commissions to test whether a notified body genuinely qualifies for exemption.
• Courts should apply a proportionality test, preferring item-by-item Section 8 exemptions over blanket exclusion of whole organisations.
• Restore the fixed five-year tenure for commissioners to protect their independence [2].

The Act's safeguards exist on paper, but they act late and depend on public vigilance. Scrutiny should come first: a clear definition, publication before effect, and independent review. That would keep Section 24 a narrow security shield rather than a tool of secrecy. It would uphold Article 19(1)(a) and SDG 16.10 on public access to information.