Future Of Transparency - RTI In The Digital Age Of Data Protection And AI

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Technology, Cyber & Privacy

Published: 2026-08-23T19:56:16.213339+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:11:25.422+00:00

FUTURE OF TRANSPARENCY: RTI IN THE DIGITAL AGE

OF DATA PROTECTION AND AI

Vidhi Shrivastava, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

ABSTRACT

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) changed the democratic environment of India as it institutionalised the access of the citizens to the information held by the state. But the swift transition to digital governance, which is characterised by the application of data-driven public service provision, algorithmic decision making, and the application of artificial intelligence (AI), has revealed structural constraints with the documentcentric approach taken by the Act. The article looks at the growing conflicts between transparency and technological obscurity, especially where AIbased systems act as black boxes, and where new privacy-based legislation like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, redefines disclosure conventions.

It evaluates the growing incompatibility of exemptions in Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(j) with calls of algorithmic accountability, and the further restriction of access to information vital to the governance process through the watering down of public-benefit protections. The paper relies on international examples, such as the right to an explanation in the EU GDPR, the Directive on the automated decision-making in Canada, and the transparency principles that are used in other countries to develop their regulatory structures, which may be applied to India and its developing regulatory landscape. Recent judicial and policy trends are also evaluated in order to point out the reticent stance of the judiciary and an increasing necessity to reconcile the regimes of transparency and data protection.

This paper contends that in the absence of any statutory reform, improvement of digital infrastructure, and any form of explicit clauses on the disclosure of algorithms, the RTI Act will be negated in a state of automation. It ends with a set of recommendations to reform the transparency regime in India such that technological progress does not undermine but bolsters the democratic accountability.

INTRODUCTION

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) has been praised as a pillar of India's democratic government for several years. The RTI Act was enacted with the intention of promoting openness, transparency, accountability, and public participation. It allows individuals to request information from public officials, facilitating informed civic engagement. The effectiveness and adaptability of the RTI Act, however, are being critically examined as the country moves into an era of digital governance, which is marked by data-driven public service delivery, automated decision-making, and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into bureaucratic procedures. Under the auspices of programs like Digital India, digital governance has revolutionised how the government communicates with its citizens.

The state is increasingly depending on opaque technology to improve administrative efficiency, from algorithmic surveillance tools to automated welfare programs and AI-enabled predictive policing. Although such advances promise efficiency and scalability, they also bring complications that question the fundamental principles of accessibility and openness entrenched in the RTI framework. Although promising, artificial intelligence (AI) in governance frequently acts as a “black box,” making the decisionmaking process opaque and incomprehensible to the general public. 1 The rise of privacy-focused laws, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 20232, which gives the government extensive discretionary authority over data access and sharing, exacerbates this conflict.

The enforcement of RTI may be weakened by such powers, particularly in cases where disclosure is denied due to data sensitivity or national interest3. In circumstances involving algorithmic governance, where disclosure of source codes, models, or decision logic is either prohibited by Section 84 of the RTI Act or is not preserved in a way that the applicant can understand, this conflict between privacy and transparency is most noticeable. The right to privacy has also been firmly established as a basic right by the Supreme Court's 1 Gagan Deep Sharma, Anshita Yadav & Ritika Chopra, Artificial Intelligence and Effective Governance: A Review, Critique and Research Agenda, 2 SUSTAINABLE FUTURES 100008 (2020), https://doi. org/10. 1016/j. sftr. 2019. 100008

2 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023

3 Ishrat Ali Rizvi, RTI Act, 2005 and Digital Personal Data Protection Law: Need to Harmonize Competing Interests, INDIAN J. L. & LEGAL RES. (Dec. 2023), https://www.ijllr.com/post/rti-act-2005-and-digitalpersonal-protection-data-law-need-to-harmonize-competing-interests.

4 Right to Information Act, S.8, No. 22 of 2005,

ruling in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India5, necessitating a careful balancing act between the two conflicting public interests of privacy and transparency. Under Article 19(1)(a)6Courts have continuously maintained citizens' right to know, but they have also acknowledged that uncontrolled disclosure in a digital setting might have unforeseen consequences, particularly when data is processed or interpreted by computers. Jurisdictions throughout the world have started to address these issues. Article 227 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union guarantees a “right to explanation” in situations involving automated decision-making. This protection is mainly lacking in Indian legislation.

Similarly, efforts are being made to formalize accountability in public sector AI systems through the UK's Algorithmic Transparency Standard8 and Canada's Directive9 on Automated Decision-Making. These comparison models provide insightful information for the current regulatory discourse in India. The RTI Act in India has made it possible to digitise public services, but it has not been sufficiently modified to account for the opacity brought about by AI systems. 10Furthermore, digital exclusion is still a significant issue; people who lack access to online resources or digital literacy face greater challenges in exercising their right to information, thereby undermining the fundamental goal of RTI. With an emphasis on the consequences of AI-based decision-making for accountability and openness, this article examines the changing interaction between the RTI Act and digital governance.

It looks at the legal void around algorithmic disclosure, that evaluates recent legislative and judicial developments, and suggests bringing RTI in line with new technology realities.

5 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1

6 The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.19(1)(a)

7 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (General Data Protection

Regulation),2016, Art.22

8 U.K. Cabinet Office, Algorithmic Transparency Standard (Nov. 2021),

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/algorithmic-transparency-standard. 9 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Directive on Automated Decision-Making, (2019), https://www.tbssct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32592. 10 Shalini Singh, Promoting e-Governance through Right to Information: A Case Study of India, INT’L J. SCI. & ENG’G RES., vol. 1, no. 1, Nov. 2010, https://www.ijser.org/paper/Promoting_e- Governance_through_Right_to_Information.html.

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005: A TRANSPARENCY TOOL

A significant change in Indian democratic governance was brought about by the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), which made it possible for citizens to access information that is kept by public institutions. The RTI Act was enacted to encourage openness, responsibility, and participatory democracy. Its constitutional validity stems from Article 19(1)(a)11, which guarantees the right to free speech and expression. The Supreme Court affirmed in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain12 that "the right to know is derived from the concept of freedom of speech," acknowledging it as a crucial element of informed engagement in government. A comprehensive procedural framework for information requests is outlined in the RTI Act.

Any citizen may submit an application under Section 6 13, and Section 714 requires a response within 30 days. Crucially, Section 815 lists exclusions that prevent publication of things like cabinet files, privacy, and national security. The "public interest override" under Section 8(2)16, which requires disclosure where a greater public interest warrants it, applies even to these exclusions. However, the statutory framework was drafted in an era that did not anticipate digital governance or automated decision-making, leaving algorithmic processes outside the traditional notion of “records” or “documents”. Section 417, which requires public entities to provide information suo motu in order to reduce the need for individual applications, is a significant innovation under the Act.

It is pertinent to note that this clause improves openness by making real-time data and public documents digitally accessible when paired with e-Government practices18. Yet, proactive disclosure has not evolved to include AI models, automated workflows, or algorithmic risk assessment, which is central to public administration. The Act has been upheld in large part by the judiciary. The Supreme Court upheld the need that public bodies disclose information unless they have a legitimate exception, in the case of CBSE

11 The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.19(1)(a)

12 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 S.C.C. 428 (India)

13 Right to Information Act, S.6, No. 22 of 2005

14 Right to Information Act, S.7, No. 22 of 2005

15 Right to Information Act, S.8, No. 22 of 2005

16 Right to Information Act, S.8(2), No. 22 of 2005

17 Right to Information Act, S.4, No. 22 of 2005

18 Shalini Singh, Promoting e-Governance through Right to Information: A Case Study of India, INT’L J. SCI. & ENG’G RES., vol. 1, no. 1, Nov. 2010, https://www.ijser.org/paper/Promoting_eGovernance_through_Right_to_Information.html.

v. Aditya Bandopadhyay19. The Court further underlined the quasi-judicial character of Information Commissions and its function in upholding transparency in Namit Sharma v. Union of India20. The RTI Act is nevertheless a potent instrument for democratic scrutiny in spite of operational issues including bureaucratic non-compliance and growing pendency. The Act's significance only grows as government becomes more data-driven and digitalised, necessitating strong adaptation to maintain transparency in the era of algorithms.

POINTS OF CONFLICT: RTI VS. DIGITAL GOVERNANCE AND AI

The growth of digital governance and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into public administration have produced new, effective, but more opaque, paradigms for how states operate. Digital governance systems, especially those powered by AI and machine learning, provide significant procedural and substantive obstacles to accessing information, despite the RTI Act’s goal of ensuring transparency in decision-making. The black box aspect of AI algorithms is a major source of contention. For activities like welfare targeting, predictive policing, facial recognition, and resource allocation, public authorities are increasingly depending on automated technologies. Nevertheless, these systems function via intricate, sometimes proprietary algorithms that are difficult to understand or accessible to the general public.

The opacity of AI tools prevents real public accountability and thus gets around the RTI Act’s Section 4(1)(c)21 normative requirement that the administrative justification for decisions be disclosed22. Furthermore, Section 8(1)(d)23 and Section 8(1)(e)24 are commonly invoked to support the reluctance to reveal algorithmic models, training datasets, or source codes. The resultant decision-making architecture is shielded from transparency requirements, creating a legal limbo where public agencies work with private digital companies. The growing privatization

19 C.B.S.E. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 S.C.C. 497 (India).

20 Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 S.C.C. 745 (India).

21 Right to Information Act, S.4(1)(c), No. 22 of 2005

22 Gagan Deep Sharma, Anshita Yadav & Ritika Chopra, Artificial Intelligence and Effective Governance: A Review, Critique and Research Agenda, 2 SUSTAINABLE FUTURES 100008 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2019.100008

23 Right to Information Act, S.8(1)(d), No. 22 of 2005

24 Right to Information Act, S.8(1)(e), No. 22 of 2005

of digital governance infrastructure may undermine RTI’s core principles by excluding crucial information and decision-making from its jurisdiction25. The intersection between data privacy and openness presents another conflict. Public agencies have extensive power to withhold personal information under the pretext of “public interest” or “national security,” according to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023. The DPDP Act’s expanded powers may further restrict access to algorithmic judgments, particularly where those conclusions are based on sensitive personal data, even though Section 8(1)(j)26 of the RTI Act already safeguards personal information. These new complexities have not yet received adequate judicial attention.

In Raj Narain27 and Aditya Bandopadhyay28, courts have highlighted citizens' right to know, but they haven't yet addressed the structural opacity of AI in public administration. Efficiency, innovation, and constitutional principles must be balanced in order to overcome these grounds of contention as governance continues its technological progress. In light of a digital and unintelligible state, the RTI regime must broaden its scope of interpretation to encompass algorithmic accountability, or else it runs the danger of becoming outdated.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON AND BEST PRACTICES

Many countries were compelled to rethink their transparency standards due to the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in public administration. Although India's 2005 Right to Information Act is a cornerstone for democratic participation, lessons learned from other countries can help legal systems better address the difficulties posed by opaque, data-driven government. A citizen’s “right to explanation” under Article 2229 of the General Data Protection Regulation

(GDPR) has been formalised by the European Union, giving people the right to understand the reasoning behind and implications of automated decision-making. This clause represents a paradigm change, putting algorithmic transparency at the centre of digital human rights

25 Carnegie Endowment for Int’l Peace, India’s Advance on AI Regulation (2024),

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/11/indias-advance-on-ai-regulation.

26 Right to Information Act, S.8(1)(j), No. 22 of 2005

27 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 S.C.C. 428 (India)

28 C.B.S.E. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 S.C.C. 497 (India).

29 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (General Data Protection

Regulation), 2016, Art. 22

protection, notwithstanding criticism for its ambiguous application scope. Comparably, before using AI systems, government agencies are required under Canada’s 2019 Directive on Automated Decision-Making to carry out Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIA). These assessments, which are required to be published publicly, review the fairness, interpretability, and openness of automated judgments and promote a proactive disclosure culture consistent with the principles of open government30. Leader in digital governance, Estonia, has launched a citizen-focused platform called “Kratt” that combines real-time public information access with artificial intelligence techniques. To ensure procedural fairness, Estonia's Public Information Act also requires that automated administrative actions be subject to human scrutiny31.

The Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand (2020)32, a voluntary government pledge to openness, justice, and privacy when employing AI, has been added to New Zealand's Official Information Act 1982. However, it is older. This combination of statutory guarantees and soft law offers a paradigm for striking a balance between responsibility and creativity. These actions demonstrate the increasing awareness on a global scale that transparency has to encompass algorithmic procedures in addition to conventional documentation. By using this international lesson through statute modifications, policy recommendations, and judicial interpretation, India, with its strong RTI jurisprudence, may greatly benefit from meeting the problems presented by the digital state.

JUDICIAL AND POLICY TRENDS IN INDIA

India's legal and regulatory environment has recently started to address the conflict between the 2005 Right to Information Act and the growing use of digital tools in public administration. Courts and political authorities have recognised the necessity to reinterpret the RTI Act's principles in light of algorithmic governance and data privacy, despite the fact that it was passed before the digital revolution. 30 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Directive on Automated Decision-Making, GOV’T OF CAN. (Apr. 1, 2019), https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32592.

31 Republic of Estonia, Public Information Act, RT I 2000, 92, 597, as amended (Est.),

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/514112013005/consolide/current

32 New Zealand Government, Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand, (July 2020),

https://www.data.govt.nz/assets/data-ethics/algorithm-charter/Aotearoa-New-Zealand-Algorithm-Charter.pdf.

The need of openness in public administration has been underlined by the Indian Supreme Court several times. The Court concluded that “the right to information is a cherished right” in C. B. S. E. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, highlighting that disclosure is the rule and non-disclosure is the exception33. Though there are increasing examples of AI and algorithm-based decisionmaking being used in municipal administration, welfare distribution, and law enforcement, this progressive position has not yet been formally extended to these technologies. In its 118th Report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice34 noted that an updated information regime is necessary for the digital ecosystem.

Under Section 435 of the RTI Act, it was suggested that public bodies should preserve AI models and automated decision-making systems in an open way and think about proactively revealing algorithmic procedures. Simultaneously, the 2018 Justice B. N. Srikrishna Committee Report36 on data protection stressed the need for accountability and transparency to extend to algorithmic judgments that impact people's rights. Although the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 was based on this research, there is still a problem with its complete integration with the RTI framework. Indeed, critics contend that the 2023 Act gives privacy and state authority precedence over information access, and that its arbitrary exemptions are likely to supersede RTI requirements. The judiciary continues to exercise caution.

The Supreme Court acknowledged informational self-determination as a component of the right to privacy in K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India37 Still, it did not specifically address how this coexists with the public's right to know. Lower courts and information commissions are frequently left to handle the conflict between transparency and digital opacity on a case-by-case basis due to the lack of a comprehensive harmonising framework. However, evidence of evolution can be found. The Delhi High Court's order to provide CCTV tender assessment information in the Rajeev Suri v. GNCTD38 case is one example of a recent

33 C.B.S.E. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 S.C.C. 497 (India).

34 Dep’t-Related Parl. Standing Comm. on Pers., Pub. Grievances, L. & Just., 118th Report on the Functioning of the Central Information Commission, Rajya Sabha (2021), https://rajyasabha.nic.in.

35 Right to Information Act, S.4, No. 22 of 2005

36 Justice B.N. Srikrishna Comm. on Data Prot., A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy,

Empowering Indians (2018), Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, https://www.meity.gov.in.

37 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).

38 Rajeev Suri v. GNCTD, W.P.(C) 1123/2023, High Court of Delhi (India).

High Court ruling that shows the judiciary’s readiness to guarantee algorithmic accountability in public infrastructure projects. Furthermore, government agencies have occasionally been ordered by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to provide vendor agreements and technical details pertaining to AI systems, particularly in initiatives involving smart governance and surveillance. There is still no unified policy or jurisprudential framework despite these attempts. For the RTI regime to stay strong in the face of a state that is quickly digitising, the judges and policymakers must strike a moral balance between transparency, innovation, and data security.

SHORTCOMINGS AND ANALYSIS

In terms of encouraging transparency and accountability in Indian administration, the Right to Information Act of 2005 marked a turning point. However, the emergence of AI-powered systems and digital governance has revealed serious flaws in its structure. Due to its pre-digital conception, the Act does not contain measures that address the complexity brought about by digital data management and algorithmic decision-making. The Act's document-centric approach, which ignores the nuances of digital data and automated procedures, is one of its main shortcomings. Because of this, it is frequently difficult for individuals to obtain information about the AI algorithms and digital decision-making technologies used by public agencies. Similarly, the RTI framework is struck by implementation problems.

Statistics have highlighted limitations such as a lack of skilled staff, digital infrastructure, and knowledge among residents on their rights under the Act. These difficulties are worsened in rural and isolated locations, where internet access and digital skills are limited. Furthermore, difficulties have been caused by the overlap between the RTI Act and data privacy legislation such as the DPDP Act. The DPDP Act, 2023, which was passed recently, has raised serious questions about transparency. A significant provision under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been eliminated through Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act. In the past, citizens had to be informed of any facts that could not be kept secret from Parliament or state legislatures. By eliminating this protection, the amendment drastically lowers the volume of information that public bodies must reveal.

Critics contend that this amendment significantly tilts the scales in favour of secrecy, making it more difficult for the general public to obtain the information

needed to hold people accountable and expose wrongdoing.39 In conclusion, even though the RTI Act was groundbreaking when passed, it now needs significant revision to withstand the threats of privacy-focused laws and digital governance. Upholding the spirit of openness in the digital age requires bolstering digital infrastructures, updating RTI regulations to consider AI and algorithms, elucidating areas where data protection laws overlap, and reintroducing crucial public interest exclusions.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

The RTI Act of 2005 institutionalised the citizens’ right to information, enabling access to public data and promoting participatory government. As governance architecture rapidly transitions to digital platforms and AI-driven decision-making, the RTI framework encounters unparalleled challenges. In light of these challenges, the following suggestions are proposed: Statutory Amendments: The RTI Act should be amended to specifically give people the right to be informed of algorithms, automated decision-making systems, and data management procedures that government agencies employ. Standards for Algorithmic Transparency: Create government-wide policies that require algorithmic audits and proactive disclosure of AI use in public services, modelled after Canada's Directive on Automated Decision-Making.

Restore Public Interest Safeguards: To guarantee that critical information, including the personal information of public officials in governance situations, is still available when required for accountability, a strong public interest override principle should be reinstated in the RTI framework. Bridging the Digital Divide: To make sure that the very individuals RTI aims to empower are not left behind by technical breakthroughs, increase citizen access to e-governance platforms, particularly in rural and underprivileged regions. Capacity Building: Enhance digital record-keeping infrastructures across governmental 39 Mrinalini Dhyani, Civil Society Groups Oppose Impending RTI Act Change, Say Data Protection Act ‘Fails to Protect Privacy’, ThePrint (Mar. 22, 2025), https://theprint.

in/india/civil-society-groups-oppose-impendingrti-act-change-say-data-protection-act-fails-to-protect-privacy/2560218/

agencies and train governmental Information Officers (PIOs) to handle technical RTI queries pertaining to digital systems and artificial intelligence. As it stands, the RTI Act has to be updated to reflect the realities of artificial intelligence and digital government. The legislation must change dynamically to maintain the democratic ideal of transparency, making sure that technology advancements enhance rather than diminish citizens' right to information.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borah SK. Right to Information Act: A Key to Good Governance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention. 2013; 2:19-20. • Singh S. Promoting e-Governance through Right to Information: A Case-study of India. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research. 2010;4-5. • Transparency Review: Journal of Transparency Studies. 2018;11(2):17-18. • Mrinalini Dhyani, Civil Society Groups Oppose Impending RTI Act Change, Say Data Protection Act ‘Fails to Protect Privacy’, ThePrint (Mar. 22, 2025), https://theprint.in/india/civil-society-groups-oppose-impending-rti-act-change-saydata-protection-act-fails-to-protect-privacy/2560218/ • Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Directive on Automated Decision-Making,

GOV’T

OF

CAN.

(Apr. 1, 2019), https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doceng.aspx?id=32592. • Shalini Singh, Promoting e-Governance through Right to Information: A Case Study of India, INT’L J. SCI. & ENG’G RES., vol. 1, no. 1, Nov. 2010, • Singh, Nituja, et al., Right to Information and E-Governance: A Synergistic Approach to Foster Transparency, 5(3) Int’l J. Current Res. Multidisciplinary 12 (2025). • Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Directive on Automated Decision-Making, (2019), https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32592. • Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (General Data Protection Regulation),2016, Art.22