In a move that has reignited the debate over governmental opacity, the Union Ministry has tabled amendments that would exempt key provisions of the controversial Shanti Bill from the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Proponents argue that certain security‑related clauses must remain confidential to safeguard national interests, while critics warn that the measure could erode democratic accountability and set a dangerous precedent for future legislation. This article unpacks the background of the bill, examines the proposed RTI restrictions, surveys reactions across the political spectrum, and assesses the broader implications for India’s transparency framework.
Background of the Shanti Bill
The Shanti Bill, formally known as the National Security and Public Order (Amendment) Act, was introduced in Parliament last year with the stated aim of strengthening internal security mechanisms against terrorism and insurgency. It seeks to expand surveillance powers, broaden the definition of “terrorist activity,” and introduce harsher penalties for offenses deemed a threat to public order. While the government touts the bill as essential for a “peaceful and secure nation,” civil‑rights groups have raised concerns about potential misuse and infringement on fundamental freedoms.
Proposed RTI Restrictions
Under the new proposal, sections dealing with intelligence gathering, operational details of security agencies, and the criteria for classifying activities as terrorist will be placed in the Schedule of Exempted Information under the RTI Act. The amendment also seeks to create a fast‑track review committee to assess exemption requests, a move that critics say could bypass judicial oversight.
| Date | Event | Key Development |
|---|---|---|
| 2024‑08‑15 | Bill introduced in Lok Sabha | Initial debate on security provisions |
| 2024‑11‑02 | Committee report submitted | Recommendations for stricter surveillance |
| 2025‑03‑10 | RTI amendment tabled | Exemption of select sections of Shanti Bill |
| 2025‑12‑19 | Current status | Parliamentary debate ongoing |
Political and Civil‑Society Reactions
Opposition parties have uniformly condemned the amendment, labeling it a “backdoor attempt to hide legislative intent”. The RTI Act advocacy groups, including the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, have filed petitions in the Supreme Court, arguing that the exemption violates the spirit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Meanwhile, some security analysts defend the move, contending that unchecked disclosure of operational details could jeopardize ongoing investigations.
Legal and Democratic Implications
Should the amendment pass, it would mark the first time a major piece of legislation is partially shielded from RTI scrutiny. Legal scholars warn that this could create a “tiered transparency” system, where only politically palatable provisions remain open to public scrutiny. The precedent may embolden future governments to seek similar exemptions for other contentious bills, potentially weakening the checks and balances that RTI provides.
Way forward
Stakeholders suggest a middle‑ground approach: limiting exemptions to genuinely sensitive national‑security information while maintaining public access to the bill’s broader policy framework. Strengthening the role of the Information Commission and ensuring judicial review of exemption decisions are also recommended to preserve democratic oversight.
Conclusion
The proposal to restrict RTI access to the Shanti Bill underscores a growing tension between security imperatives and the demand for transparent governance. While the government argues that secrecy is essential for effective counter‑terrorism, critics fear an erosion of accountability that could undermine public trust. As Parliament debates the amendment, the outcome will likely shape the future trajectory of India’s transparency regime, setting a benchmark for how sensitive legislation is balanced against the public’s right to know.
Image by: Czapp Árpád
https://www.pexels.com/@czapp-arpad-3647289
