Two decades after its enactment, the RTI Act's promise of proactive disclosure remains largely unfulfilled. Critically examine the reasons and suggest remedies.

Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 requires every public authority to publish 16 categories of information on its own under Section 4(1)(b), so that citizens need not file requests for it [2]. Twenty-one years later, an analysis of central public authorities finds that this duty "has not been followed" [1]. The gap lies in enforcement, not in how the law was designed.

Reasons for the shortfall

• No personal liability: Section 20 penalties (Rs 250 a day, up to Rs 25,000) cover only lapses linked to a request. Failing to publish under Section 4 carries no fine [2].
• Weak oversight: Commissions can only order compliance or make recommendations in their annual reports (Sections 19(8) and 25) [2]. The CIC's Transparency Audit of department websites found the gaps but could not punish them [3].
• Overstretched watchdog: In Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019), petitioners showed that CIC and SIC vacancies were causing huge backlogs. The Supreme Court ordered timely appointments [4]. The 2019 Amendment let the Centre fix commissioners' term and salary, which raised concerns about their independence [5].
• Digital scale: Thousands of Union and State websites are hard to monitor [1].
• Long-missed deadline: The Act required publication within 120 days of enactment, so this is not a teething problem [2].

A balanced view

• The framework is not empty. DoPT guidelines add 8 more categories, including procurement and PPPs [1], and the CIC has built a method for auditing disclosures [3].
• The design is sound. What is missing is any incentive to comply.

Remedies

• Legal: Extend Section 20 to Section 4 lapses, or name one officer in each department as answerable for the disclosure list.
• Institutional: Fill commission vacancies before they arise, as the Supreme Court directed [4], and restore secure tenure.
• Name and shame: Commissions should list non-compliant authorities in their Section 25 reports [2] and publish audit scores on a public dashboard [3].
• Technological: Use standard, machine-readable templates on one Digital India portal.

Section 4 fails because no one pays a price for ignoring it. Fixing that requires accountable officers, independent and well-staffed commissions, and public audits. Making disclosure the default would honour the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and advance SDG 16.10 on public access to information.