The Economic Survey cautioned that the RTI Act, 2005 was not meant for idle curiosity or micromanaging governance. However, it reaffirmed RTI’s crucial role in strengthening transparency, accountability, and democratic oversight of government functioning.
NEW DELHI: The Economic Survey of India has warned that the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was not intended for mere curiosity or to enable citizens to micromanage government operations, while still reaffirming the law’s vital role in promoting transparency and accountability.
It said,
“The RTI Act was never intended as a tool for idle curiosity, nor as a mechanism to micromanage government from the outside.”
The survey characterizes the RTI Act as one of India’s most significant democratic advancements and acknowledges its transformative role in governance. However, it cautions that an unbalanced pursuit of transparency could potentially undermine effective governance.
The survey stresses that any review of the RTI framework should not dilute its fundamental purpose. It highlights that India’s RTI framework is broader than many global transparency laws, contrasting with countries where internal personnel guidelines, inter-agency communications, financial regulation reports, and policy formulation documents are explicitly exempt from disclosure.
ALSO READ: UP Court Summons Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi Over Remarks on ‘Poor’ Economic Survey
According to the survey,
“India, in contrast, leaves far less space for such carve-outs.”
It notes that draft notes, internal correspondence, and even officials’ personal records often become public, sometimes lacking a clear connection to public interest. Consequently, internal opinions and file notings fall under the Act’s definition of information, with only Cabinet papers receiving temporary protection.
The survey warns that the routine disclosure of internal drafts and remarks could weaken governance.
It says,
“If every draft or remark might be disclosed, officials may hold back, resorting instead to cautious language and fewer bold ideas…The candour needed for effective governance is blunted.”
It suggests that accountability should be tied to final decisions instead.
It said,
“Democracy functions best when officials can deliberate freely and are then held accountable for the decisions they finally endorse, not for every half-formed thought expressed along the way.”
The survey indicates that Indian courts have acknowledged such limits and reiterates the law’s primary objective as,
“The RTI Act is best understood not as an end in itself, but as a means to strengthen democracy.”
ESI on Regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Regarding the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI), the Economic Survey of India 2025–26 argues that a standalone law is unnecessary. Instead, it advocates for AI governance to be integrated within the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023.
The survey warns against hastily enacting a comprehensive AI law and recommends a phased, risk-based regulatory strategy that adapts alongside technological and market developments.
It suggests a sequencing model for AI governance that encourages experimentation, allows for scaling, and introduces binding legal requirements only where risks, market power, or information disparities are most significant. It notes that uniform, upfront regulations might impose excessive compliance costs on start-ups and early-stage innovators in a labor-rich and resource-limited economy like India.
The survey advocates allowing sector-specific regulators to manage AI deployment within their respective fields including finance, healthcare, education, and public administration rather than imitating models like the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act.
It said,
“Data governance must also evolve through subordinate legislation under the DPDP framework to introduce functional data categorisation and auditability requirements, specifically for large-scale AI training. This must be complemented by incentive-based mechanisms for domestic value retention, such as the menu-based contribution pathways illustrated earlier. Human capital pipelines, particularly the ‘earn-and-learn’ pathways and curricular flexibility, should be scaled using existing legislative and budgetary lever.”
ALSO READ: “Technology Must Remain a Servant of Justice, Not Its Substitute”: CJI Surya Kant
The survey recommends calibrating AI compliance obligations based on scale, risk, and economic impact, advocating lighter regimes for research institutions and start-ups while imposing stricter transparency and reporting requirements for large companies in sensitive sectors.
Rejecting blanket prohibitions, the survey calls for enhanced institutional capabilities, including the establishment of an AI Safety Institute to perform scenario testing, red-teaming, and public disclosure of safety evaluations. It points out that certain applications such as intrusive surveillance, predictive policing, and non-transparent behavioral profiling might need stringent restrictions.
In summary, the survey asserts that India’s AI potential lies in application-driven, sector-specific systems built on open, interoperable platforms, supported by gradual regulation under existing laws.