The provisions affecting access to information should be reviewed and the rules withdrawn !

• Stating the purpose for seeking information under the RTI Act made mandatory in Maharashtra

• Demand made to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis by RTI activist Anil Galgali !

• Allegation that indirect restrictions have been imposed on the right to obtain information !

RTI activist Anil Galgali

Mumbai – RTI activist Anil Galgali has submitted a memorandum to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis demanding that the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, which provide for increased fees, restrictions on obtaining information and provisions affecting citizens’ right to information, should be reviewed and withdrawn. The mandatory requirement to state the purpose for seeking information has caused resentment among citizens in Maharashtra.

Anil Galgali stated in the memorandum that,

1. The Right to Information is a fundamental democratic right of citizens and is crucial for ensuring transparency, accountability and control over corruption in governance. However, certain provisions in the newly notified rules are inconsistent with the objectives of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Under the new rules, citizens have been required to state the necessity or purpose for seeking information, which is a matter of serious concern.
3. According to the basic principles of the RTI Act, citizens are not required to disclose why they need information. Such a condition could amount to an indirect restriction on the right to    information.

Objections mentioned in the memorandum

1. The application fee has been increased to ₹30, which places an additional financial burden on citizens.

2. The provision to charge ₹5 per page for copies of information is higher than the fee prescribed by the Union Government.

3. The limit of 150 words for an application and the condition of one subject per application amount to unnecessary restrictions.

4. The requirement to attach a self-attested copy of an identity card along with the application could hinder easy access to information.

5. The proposal to charge ₹50 for the first appeal and ₹100 for the second appeal deserves reconsideration.

6. Restricting representation by legal professionals in the appeal process is not appropriate.

7. Public objections and suggestions should have been invited before framing the rules.

8. Statutory procedures and wider public consultation are necessary before implementing these rules.

The demand made to the Government is that implementation of the relevant rules should be temporarily suspended and that more citizen-friendly and transparent revised rules should be notified after consultations with citizens, RTI activists, social organisations and legal experts. The Right to Information is not a privilege but a right of citizens. The Government should make the process of obtaining information simpler, more affordable and more citizen-friendly.