Transparency and Accountability

Good governance in one line

Good governance means a government that is transparent, accountable, responsive, efficient, inclusive and follows the rule of law. The World Bank and the UN use similar elements.

Right to Information Act, 2005

• Any citizen can ask for information from a "public authority".
• Reply time: 30 days, or 48 hours if it concerns the life or liberty of a person.
• Each office has a Public Information Officer (PIO); appeals go to the Central/State Information Commission.
• Exemptions are listed in Section 8 (e.g. sovereignty and security, cabinet papers, personal information without public interest).
• It turned "secrecy" into "openness" and helps fight corruption.

Other accountability tools

E-governance

• Digital India (2015), Aadhaar-based Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) – reduces leakages by paying benefits straight into bank accounts.
• The JAM trinity: Jan Dhan accounts, Aadhaar and Mobile.
• Common Service Centres take services to villages; DigiLocker stores documents.
• Challenges: the digital divide, data privacy, cyber security, and the need for offline options.

Role of civil society

NGOs, self-help groups, the media and pressure groups raise issues, deliver services and watch the government. Their funding transparency is regulated (for foreign contributions, by the FCRA).

Background: why these two words matter

Transparency means citizens can see what the government does – its decisions, spending and reasons. Accountability means officials must answer for their actions and face consequences. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) called them the foundations of good governance. The World Bank lists accountability among its six governance indicators.

Three kinds of accountability

The RTI Act 2005 – how it works

• Who can ask: any citizen.
• From whom: "public authorities" – bodies created by the Constitution or law, or substantially funded by the government.
• Process: apply to the Public Information Officer (PIO) → reply within 30 days (48 hours if life or liberty is involved) → first appeal within the department → second appeal to the Central or State Information Commission.
• Fees: ₹10 for central applications; free for BPL applicants.
• Exemptions (Section 8): sovereignty and security, cabinet papers (until the decision is taken), personal information with no public interest, trade secrets, and others – but public interest can override (Section 8(2)).
• Section 4: proactive disclosure by every public authority.
• Penalty: up to ₹25,000 on a PIO for unreasonable delay or denial.
• Section 24: security and intelligence agencies are excluded, except for information on corruption and human rights violations.

The 2019 amendment let the Central government fix the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners (previously equal to election commissioners) – criticised as weakening independence. The DPDP Act 2023 amended Section 8(1)(j) to broaden the personal-information exemption – another live debate.

Other tools of accountability

• Citizen's Charters – service standards and grievance redress (the "Sevottam" model of the 2nd ARC).
• Social audit – mandatory in MGNREGA (Section 17). Andhra Pradesh/Telangana and Meghalaya (the first state law on social audit, 2017) are often-cited models.
• Public Services Guarantee Acts – time-bound delivery (Madhya Pradesh 2010 was the first; Bihar, Delhi and others followed).
• e-Governance – DBT, the CPGRAMS grievance portal, GeM for procurement, dashboards; these reduce discretion and leakages.
• Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014 – passed, but the amendment and rules have been pending; protection remains weak.
• Lokpal and Lokayuktas; the CAG; parliamentary committees.

Causes of poor accountability (and effects)

Causes: the colonial culture of secrecy (the Official Secrets Act 1923); complex procedures; vacancies in information commissions; fear among whistleblowers; low digital literacy; and political interference.

Effects: corruption, leakages (ghost beneficiaries), poor service quality, low trust in institutions, and litigation.

Case study: MKSS and the birth of RTI

In the early 1990s, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in rural Rajasthan (Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, Shankar Singh) held jan sunwais (public hearings). There, villagers compared muster rolls and bills with what had actually been built. They exposed fake wage payments and phantom works. Their slogan – "Hamara paisa, hamara hisaab" (our money, our accounts) – grew into a national campaign. This led to Rajasthan's RTI law (2000) and the national RTI Act (2005). The lesson: grassroots demand plus civil society plus law can transform governance.

Common misconceptions

• "RTI covers private companies." – It does not, unless they are substantially financed by government or the information is accessible to a public authority under another law.
• "Political parties are covered by RTI." – The CIC held in 2013 that six national parties are public authorities, but parties have not complied, and the matter is before the Supreme Court.
• "Transparency alone ensures accountability." – Information must be followed by answerability and enforcement (penalties, redress).

How UPSC asks it

Mains themes include the effectiveness of RTI and the impact of amendments, social audit, citizen's charters, and e-governance as a tool for accountability. Prelims picks provisions of the RTI Act.

Mains answer framework

Q-type: "The RTI Act has empowered citizens but faces several challenges. Discuss."

• Intro: 2005; about 4–6 million applications a year (estimates vary).
• Achievements: exposure of scams (Adarsh, PDS), empowerment of the poor, better record-keeping, proactive disclosure.
• Challenges: vacancies and pendency in commissions, the 2019 amendment, attacks on RTI activists, poor Section 4 compliance, misuse, the DPDP-related changes.
• Way forward: time-bound appointments, protection for whistleblowers, digitised records, awareness.
• Conclusion: "sunlight is the best disinfectant" – keep the law strong.

Right to Information Act, 2005: key provisions

The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 allowed the Central Government to prescribe the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners, which critics argued reduced their independence.

Social audit

Social audits, mandated for works under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, let citizens verify muster rolls and works on the ground in public hearings. Andhra Pradesh (and later Telangana) institutionalised them through an independent society, and the approach has been extended to other schemes.

Mains practice question

Q. Has the RTI Act improved accountability in governance? Outline: empowered citizens and exposed scams; changed bureaucratic culture towards record-keeping; challenges – pendency in commissions, vacancies, threats to activists, weak proactive disclosure, the 2019 amendment; way forward – fill vacancies, digitise records, protect RTI users.