The Hindu Editorial Analysis
6 May 2025
The messaging from putting the IWT in ‘abeyance’
(Source – The Hindu, National Edition – Page No. – 08)
Topic: GS 2: Governance | Transparency and Accountability | Role of RTI in Strengthening Democracy
Context
- The government recently declared that the processing of RTI requests is “in abeyance” due to the ongoing Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for the Lok Sabha elections.
- This has raised widespread concern among transparency advocates, as there is no legal basis under the RTI Act or election guidelines to suspend the fundamental right to information during elections.
Introduction
In a democracy, access to information is not a privilege—it is a right that ensures accountable governance.
By suspending RTI services during elections under the pretext of the Model Code of Conduct, the government risks undermining democratic transparency at the most critical time: when citizens must make informed choices.
The Legal and Constitutional Framework
1. RTI as a Statutory Right
- The Right to Information Act (2005) empowers citizens to request information from public authorities without restriction, barring specific exceptions listed under the law.
- The Act provides no provision for putting RTI “in abeyance” during elections or emergencies.
2. No Basis Under the Model Code of Conduct
- The MCC, enforced by the Election Commission of India, governs the conduct of political parties and governments, not the delivery of citizens’ legal entitlements.
- Suspending RTI contradicts both the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, and lacks any constitutional or legal justification.
Implications for Democracy and Citizens’ Rights
1. Blackout of Accountability Tools
- The election season is when transparency matters most, especially to scrutinize policies, funding, appointments, and administrative decisions.
- Withholding RTI responses during this time reduces public oversight and enables the potential misuse of state machinery.
2. Chilling Effect on Participatory Democracy
- Citizens, journalists, and civil society rely on RTI to flag electoral violations, investigate public expenditure, and question governance records.
- Any break in this mechanism sends a regressive message, discouraging civic engagement.
Administrative Convenience vs Public Right
1. Lack of Notification or Procedure
- There has been no formal gazette notification or legal order backing the suspension of RTI.
- Administrative delay or overload cannot be used as excuses to deny a legal right protected by Parliament.
2. Dangerous Precedent for Future Dilution
- Allowing suspension today could set a precedent for arbitrarily withholding transparency tomorrow, especially during emergencies, elections, or political crises.
Conclusion
The decision to keep RTI “in abeyance” during elections is not just procedural overreach; it’s a democratic retreat.
At a time when voters need access to credible, timely information, denial of that right chips away at electoral integrity.
The government must immediately restore full RTI functionality, and the Election Commission should clarify that the MCC cannot be misused to curb legal rights.
Transparency must not be seasonal—it must be perennial in a constitutional democracy.