Protests by political parties and transparency activists have derailed the surreptitious rollout, in Tamil Nadu, of a regressive decision to exempt the Public (Law and Order) Department from the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. On September 21, the State government issued a Government Order (G.O.) exercising powers under Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act to notify the department as an “intelligence and security organisation” to which the provisions of the Act shall not apply. While the G.O. surfaced in the public domain only on September 27, strikingly, the Public Department’s designated authorities under the RTI Act had instantly begun citing it to deny information to applicants as early as September 22. This betrayed a system that is shy of investing in transparency. Unsurprisingly, State Law Minister C.T.R. Nirmalkumar was initially defensive about the government’s unilateral decision, which, in any case, required the State to have it placed before the legislature (Section 24 (5), RTI Act). He claimed that the ambit of the exemption was not sweeping enough to shield the entire department, but was intended to prevent the sharing of sensitive information relating to district-level inquiries into incidents of communal clashes and the like. However, shortly thereafter, he announced the G.O.’s withdrawal, without explaining why.

While the State’s afterthought is welcome, the episode has again exposed the political class’s penchant for maintaining secrecy in administrative affairs. Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, whose promise of change came as a breath of fresh air, should have known better. It is concerning that the establishment desired to insulate itself from transparency by amending an Act which, in any case, emphatically enables non-disclosure of information through a long list of exemptions under Section 8. Even otherwise, designated information officers of central/State institutions have displayed an uncanny skill in being economical with the truth, delaying responses or bouncing off queries from RTI Act applicants, citing vague reasons. Besides, concerns about the Digital Personal Data Protection Act diluting the RTI Act further have been widely articulated. It is worrying that the Satark Nagrik Sangathan’s 2024-25 report card on Information Commissions found a backlog of over 41,000 appeals and complaints before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), as of June last year. Yet, the TNSIC is functioning with only half of its sanctioned eight Information Commissioners and has no Chief Information Commissioner. Instead of seeking to defeat the intent of a piece of legislation enacted to empower citizens with access to information, the Tamil Nadu Government would do well to strengthen the TNSIC. After all, only an administration that does not fear transparency can be the true harbinger of change.