Transparency is better served by disclosure than by demand. Evaluate in the context of Section 4 of the RTI Act.

Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 asks every public authority to publish information suo motu (on its own) so that the public need to use the Act as little as possible [1]. The claim holds in principle. In practice, publishing information works only when the right to ask for it stands behind it.

Why disclosure serves transparency better

• Scale and equity: one upload answers thousands of possible requests. Citizens are spared fees and appeals, and Section 4(4) requires material in the local language [1].
• Pre-empts corruption: Section 4(1)(b) requires authorities to publish officials' pay, budgets and the beneficiaries of subsidy programmes [1]. Social audits can then check for leakages without filing a request.
• Eases the appeal backlog: more than 23,500 appeals were pending before the CIC in 2018 [2]. Every request that disclosure avoids takes load off the commissions.
• Changes the culture: openness becomes the default and secrecy the exception. This gives effect to the right to know under Article 19(1)(a).

Why disclosure alone falls short

• Weak compliance: publication was due within 120 days of the Act's enactment [1]. Yet a CIC-commissioned Transparency Audit of departmental websites still found gaps in disclosure [3].
• No teeth: Section 20 fines PIOs only for failures linked to a request. No official is fined for skipping Section 4 [1]. Annual third-party audits under DoPT guidelines [4] carry no penalty.
• General, not specific: the authority decides what to publish. A citizen's own grievance, such as a stalled pension file, still needs a request.
• Digital divide: website disclosure does not reach citizens who are offline.
• Demand is also shrinking: the DPDP Act, 2023 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information. Only the Section 8(2) public-interest override remains [5].

Verdict: Disclosure is the better first line of transparency. Demand is the backstop that checks disclosure and fills its gaps. The statement is therefore only partly valid, because the two work together.

Disclosure delivers scale and fairness, but demand gives it credibility. The way forward is to make one named officer answerable for Section 4 and to publish audit results on a public dashboard. Commissions should use their power to order compliance and name defaulters in their annual reports [1]. Vacancies should be filled on time, as Anjali Bhardwaj (2019) urged [2]. Transparency built into the system, backed by an enforceable right to ask, would advance SDG 16.10 (public access to information).