"No government intent on working for the people should fear transparency." Discuss the ethical case for openness in public administration.

The Supreme Court has read the right to know into Article 19(1)(a) (State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, 1975). The RTI Act, 2005 treats an informed citizenry and transparency as essential to accountable government and to containing corruption [1]. Ethically, this rests on one idea: power held in trust must answer to those who granted it.

Ethical case for openness

• Trusteeship: Officials use power on the public's behalf. A principal has a right to see what the agent does, and secrecy turns a trustee into an owner.
• Probity: Openness deters rent-seeking. Even exempted intelligence and security bodies must disclose information on allegations of corruption and human-rights violations [1]. The law itself holds that wrongdoing can never be secret.
• Reasoned, non-arbitrary action: Public authorities must give reasons for administrative decisions to affected persons [1]. Decisions must then be justifiable, which reflects Article 14's bar on arbitrariness.
• Dignity and participation: Informed citizens are participants, not subjects. Information narrows the power gap between the State and its weakest citizen.
• Legitimacy: Scrutiny exposes errors early and builds trust. The 2nd ARC called RTI the "Master Key to Good Governance" [2].

When secrecy is ethically defensible, and its limits

• Security, ongoing investigations and third-party privacy deserve protection. Section 8 shields specific information, and Section 8(2) permits disclosure where public interest outweighs the harm [1].
• The ethical test is proportionality: withhold a record, not an entire institution. Section 24(4) lets States exempt only intelligence and security organisations [1]. The recent Tamil Nadu order exempting its whole Public (Law and Order) Department, withdrawn after public protest, shows how blanket secrecy erodes trust.
• Independent referees: The 2019 amendment let the Centre set the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners [3]. This weakens the bodies that judge secrecy claims.

Way forward

• Make proactive disclosure under Section 4 the default [1].
• Publish exemption notifications before they take effect.
• Restore fixed tenure for Information Commissioners [3].
• Move from a culture of secrecy to one of openness, as the 2nd ARC urged [2].

Openness is therefore an ethical duty rooted in trusteeship, probity and citizen dignity, not an administrative courtesy. Narrow, reasoned exceptions rather than blanket exemptions can reconcile it with security. A government confident of its conduct gains legitimacy through transparency, fulfilling Article 19(1)(a) and SDG 16.10 (public access to information).