25 June,2026 02:22 PM IST | Mumbai | mid-day online correspondent
Representational image. File pic
A group of RTI activists, journalists, transparency campaigners and public-spirited citizens has issued a legal notice to the Maharashtra government, demanding the withdrawal of the Maharashtra Right to Information (RTI) Rules, 2026, alleging that the new rules dilute the statutory rights guaranteed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The notice was issued through Supreme Court and Bombay High Court advocate Sunil Ahya on behalf of former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, journalist Vijay Kumbhar, senior journalist Vinita Deshmukh, and others associated with transparency platforms, including Sajag Nagrik Manch and RTI Katta.
The notice argues that the state government's rule-making powers under Section 27 of the RTI Act are limited to implementing the legislation and cannot be used to restrict or dilute statutory rights guaranteed by Parliament.
The key legal arguments include:
- Delegated legislation cannot override Parliament's intent under the RTI Act.
- Rules are meant to implement the Act, not create additional barriers for citizens.
- Several Supreme Court judgments have consistently held that delegated legislation cannot expand beyond the scope of the parent law.
The notice also cites a February 2026 Kerala High Court judgment, which struck down similar RTI restrictions as ultra vires.
A major objection concerns the alleged lack of transparency in framing the rules.
According to the notice:
- No draft rules were published for public consultation.
- No stakeholder consultations or impact assessments were conducted.
- No explanatory memorandum or justification was made public.
The signatories argue that the absence of consultation is particularly ironic, given that the rules govern a law designed to promote transparency in governance.
Rule 9 requires RTI applicants to submit self-attested photo identity proof.
The notice contends that:
Section 6(2) of the RTI Act does not require applicants to furnish identity proof beyond contact details.
Parliament deliberately chose not to impose such a requirement.
The provision could discourage whistle-blowers, journalists and activists from seeking information.
It further argues that courts have recognised even a Post Box address as sufficient contact information, making mandatory identity proof unnecessary and disproportionate.
Rule 7 introduces several restrictions, including:
- One subject per RTI application
- A maximum limit of 150 words
- Processing only the first subject mentioned in an application
According to the notice, these restrictions:
Force applicants to file multiple RTI applications on related matters.
Increase both financial and procedural burdens.
Make complex requests involving files, contracts and policy decisions impractical.
The notice also points out that the Maharashtra government had earlier informed the Bombay High Court that the 150-word limit was advisory rather than mandatory.
The new rules prescribe increased fees, including:
- Rs 30 RTI application fee
- Rs 50 first appeal fee
- Rs 100 second appeal fee
- Rs 5 per page, including for digital copies
The notice argues that the revised fee structure makes access to information more expensive and undermines the RTI Act's objective of ensuring affordable access to public information. It also contends that digital records should not attract per-page charges.
Rule 5 limits free information for Below Poverty Line (BPL) applicants to 50 pages.
The notice argues that:
- Section 7(5) of the RTI Act grants complete fee exemption to BPL applicants.
- The rule introduces an unlawful restriction not found in the parent legislation.
- Even partial limitations undermine Parliament's legislative intent.
The notice again cites the Kerala High Court judgment, which struck down a similar restriction.
The legal notice also raises concerns over:
- A broader definition of "personal information".
- Additional grounds for denying information.
- A shift in the burden of proving public interest onto RTI applicants.
According to the signatories, these provisions contradict Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, which places the burden of justifying the denial of information on the Public Information Officer (PIO).
The activists have also objected to procedural changes, including:
- Dismissal of appeals for non-appearance.
- Automatic abatement of appeals upon the death of an appellant.
- Application of civil procedure rules to RTI proceedings.
They argue that these provisions are incompatible with the RTI Act's citizen-centric framework and could result in genuine appeals being dismissed on technical grounds rather than decided on merit.
According to the notice, the cumulative impact of the new rules would be:
- Higher costs for citizens.
- Greater procedural complexity.
- Increased scope for denial of information.
- Reduced accessibility of the RTI mechanism.
The signatories argue that the changes move the RTI regime away from Parliament's original vision of a simple, accessible and citizen-friendly transparency law.
The notice calls on the state government to:
- Withdraw the Maharashtra RTI Rules, 2026, in their entirety.
- Restore the previous RTI framework.
- Initiate an open public consultation involving RTI users, journalists and legal experts.
- Ensure that all future rules strictly comply with the RTI Act, 2005.
- 15-day deadline issued
The signatories have given the Maharashtra government 15 days to respond and withdraw the rules.
Failing compliance, they have warned that they will:
- Challenge the rules before the Bombay High Court.
- Seek to have the rules quashed.
- Pursue all other consequential legal remedies available under law.
The dispute sets the stage for a significant legal battle over the limits of executive rule-making powers and the future of transparency and access to information in Maharashtra.
