Probity in Governance: RTI, whistle-blowers and Lokpal

Transparency and the Right to Information Act

Like checking your exam answer sheet after results: once you can see it, nobody can quietly cut marks.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005, dated 15th June, 2005) was made to bring transparency and accountability to every public authority. Under section 7(1), the Public Information Officer must provide information or reject the request within thirty days of receiving it, and where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, within forty-eight hours. A penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day can be imposed for delay, not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees (RTI Act, text as on 18 November 2025, Central Information Commission).

Mains 2019 asked if the Official Secrets Act blocks RTI. The Act itself answers much of this. Section 8(2) says that, notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, a public authority may allow access to information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests; and section 22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act, 1923 where they are inconsistent. The real obstacle is a culture of secrecy, not the law.

Mains 2018 said RTI redefines accountability. Before RTI, officials were accountable upward (to superiors); RTI makes them answerable outward, to any citizen, with deadlines and penalties.

Mains 2015 noted that RTI, media and judicial activism help, but are sometimes misused, and officers fear taking quick decisions. Resolve the dichotomy (the two-sided problem): protect bona fide (honest) decisions recorded with reasons, filter frivolous applications through proactive disclosure, and punish misuse while keeping the right intact.

Source: Right to Information Act, 2005 (as on 18 November 2025), Central Information Commission.

What UPSC asks: Prelims: 30 days and 48 hours. Mains: section 22 overrides the OSA. Next likely angle: outward accountability.

Whistle-blowers, Lokpal and vigilance

A whistle-blower is an insider who reports wrongdoing. Mains 2022 asked how to protect them. Status (PIB, 11 December 2025): the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 (No. 17 of 2014) received Presidential assent on 09.05.2014 and was published on 12th May 2014, but no notification bringing it into force has been made, because the Act needs amendments on disclosures affecting sovereignty, security and similar interests. The 2015 Amendment Bill passed the Lok Sabha on 13th May 2015 but lapsed on dissolution of the Sixteenth Lok Sabha. Meanwhile, the Central Vigilance Commission is the Designated Agency under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (PIDPI) Resolution, 2004.

PIDPI complaints in the CVC, measured figures. Source: PIB, Ministry of Personnel, 11 December 2025, Annexure-I. Most complaints are filed (closed) without action.

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was passed by Parliament (December 17, 2013 in Rajya Sabha and December 18, 2013 in Lok Sabha). It provides for a Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in States, to be set up by State laws within one year of the Act coming into force. Lokpal has one Chairperson and eight Members, of whom four are Judicial Members, and fifty percent of members shall be from amongst SC, ST, OBC, Minorities and Women (PIB, 24 January 2014).

Measures for whistle-blowers: bring a strong law into force, keep identity confidential, give protection from transfer and harassment, allow anonymous digital complaints with encryption, set strict timelines for inquiry, and reward disclosures that recover public money. The 2nd ARC’s Fourth Report recalled Manjunath Shanmugam of Indian Oil Corporation, who refused bribes in a fight against petrol adulteration and was shot dead on 19th November, 2005.

What UPSC asks: Prelims: the WBP Act 2014 is not in force. Mains: the CVC under PIDPI 2004. Next likely angle: the Lokpal’s 1 + 8 structure.