Activists Challenge Maharashtra RTI Amendment Rules in Court, Cite Procedural Flaws
Prominent civil rights activists have initiated legal proceedings against the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2026, sending a legal notice to the state government demanding a complete rollback. The notice, issued on June 24, 2026, questions the validity of the amendments, arguing they were made without prior disclosure or public consultation. The activists seek the restoration of the legal position before the rules were issued and call for a transparent consultation process involving RTI users, former Information Commissioners, journalists, transparency activists, civil society organisations and legal experts.
The legal notice has been issued by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, advocate Prahlad Kachare, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, journalist Vinita Deshmukh, and civil rights activists Vivek Velankar, Jugal Rathi and Mohammed Afzal.
The notice claims that the provisions of the amended rules are not isolated defects. “They collectively reveal a pattern of restrictions that make access to information more expensive, more technical, more burdensome and more difficult than contemplated by Parliament. The cumulative effect of mandatory identity requirements, restrictions on applications, enhanced fees, shifting burden of proof, expanded exemptions and procedural hurdles is to move the RTI regime away from the citizen-centric framework envisaged by Parliament and towards a system that discourages rather than facilitates access to information,” the notice states.
Specifically, the challenged provisions include tripling of application fees, introduction of new fees for appeals, and capping of free information for Below Poverty Line individuals. The rules also mandate that each RTI query pertain to a single subject and be limited to 150 words. Additionally, they require the applicant to reveal their identity, removing anonymity for whistleblowers, and prohibit lawyers from representing applicants during hearings. If an applicant fails to appear at the hearing, the case may be dismissed; if the applicant dies, the case is automatically closed.
The activists object on several grounds, arguing that the delegated legislation exceeds its authority, the rule-making process lacked transparency, and the amendments impose financial burdens, particularly on the poor. The notice further states that the power to dismiss appeals for non-appearance is “inconsistent with the beneficial and citizen-centric character of the RTI Act.” It notes that many citizens may be unable to attend hearings for valid reasons, and proceedings should be decided on merits rather than technicalities.
Regarding the abatement of cases upon the death of an appellant, the activists argue that automatic abatement denies substantive rights without considering the nature of the information sought. RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar said, “The RTI movement in India has witnessed several instances where information seekers and transparency activists have alleged...”, highlighting ongoing concerns.
The activists have called for the complete withdrawal of the amended rules and the initiation of a fresh, transparent consultation process before any new rules are framed. The legal challenge is expected to be filed in court shortly.
