By: Dr Shabir Hassan ( Independent Researcher)
The Right to Information Act embodies one of those rare moments in democratic life when law attempts to remake the relationship between public authority and ordinary citizens. It carries within it the ambition to reorder the moral geometry of governance: to create a polity where power is answerable, where decisions cannot hide behind bureaucratic smog, and where institutional authority is tethered to public reason. In J&K, this aspiration acquires an additional resonance, for the region’s political history has been shaped by an intricate drama of mistrust, opacity, and administrative insulation. The RTI framework promised, at least in principle, a rupture with that legacy. It suggested that governance would no longer be a closed ritual conducted behind layers of discretion, but a visible, inspectable process accountable to every individual who wished to understand how decisions were made.
Yet, the unfolding of this promise has been uneven. The law exists, the citizen is aware, the normative commitment is acknowledged, but the administrative behaviour does not fully reflect the constitutional spirit of transparency. The gap between principle and practice persists, and it is within this gap that the demand for “more teeth” arises- not as an expression of disillusionment, but as a recognition that the present architecture, though noble, is insufficient to carry the weight of the region’s democratic expectations. The RTI in J&K is an idea whose moral significance is immense, but whose institutional muscle often appears fragile.
What makes the story of RTI in J&K particularly compelling is the way it intersects with the region’s long-standing anxieties about participation and accountability. For years, citizens inhabited an administrative landscape where files moved in silence, decisions emerged without explanation, and access to information depended more on personal networks than on legal rights. The arrival of RTI challenged this culture of secrecy, not by confrontation but by creating a counter-ethos: that the state must justify itself, that governance is not an esoteric ritual, and that the citizen is not a supplicant but a stakeholder. This shift, even in its partial form, altered the political imagination of J&K. For the first time, villagers in remote hamlets, students in colleges, civil society groups, and journalists found themselves equipped with a tool to demand clarity. They discovered that information- something once monopolized by the bureaucracy- was now their constitutional entitlement.
The positive dimension of this transformation should not be underestimated. The RTI Act did not merely enable information retrieval; it produced a new kind of citizen. A citizen who asks questions becomes fundamentally different from one who navigates governance through helplessness or resignation. The growth of RTI usage across various districts in J&K reflects this deepening democratic sensibility. Applications have exposed irregularities in developmental projects, uncovered discrepancies in recruitment, shed light on the allocation of public resources, and brought to the surface details about schemes that officials preferred to keep vague. These interventions, scattered yet powerful, demonstrate that the RTI has already shaped democratic behaviour even if it has not yet transformed democratic institutions fully.
But one must also confront, with sober clarity, the limitations that impede the full realization of this democratic potential. The RTI Act in J&K functions in an environment where the administrative reflex is still aligned to secrecy. Files are delayed, responses are evasive, exemptions are misused, and officers often treat queries as irritants rather than obligations. The institutional structure that should uphold the law- the Public Information Officers, First Appellate Authorities, and most importantly, the Information Commission- lacks the speed, proximity, and assertiveness needed to translate legal rights into everyday reality. The weakening of the region-specific Information Commission after 2019, and the subsequent reliance on the Central Information Commission, created a practical and psychological distance between citizens and adjudication. While the CIC is empowered in law, its capacity to deal with the region’s unique context is limited by geography and bureaucratic complexity.
This institutional distance is not a trivial detail; it alters the lived experience of the citizen. When an RTI appeal must travel across administrative layers far removed from the ground reality of J&K, the possibility of timely redress diminishes. The citizen loses not only time but confidence. A right becomes meaningful only when its enforcement is accessible, immediate, and credible. Without local adjudication or strong punitive mechanisms, the RTI loses its deterrent power. Bureaucrats learn that withholding information carries little risk. In such a scenario, the citizen’s courage becomes the only driving force- and courage alone cannot sustain a transparency regime.
Yet, it is precisely here that one must retain a positive, balanced understanding: the weaknesses of the RTI in J&K do not invalidate its promise; they merely highlight the urgent need for institutional reinforcement. The framework is not broken; it is undernourished. What is required is not despair but determination. If anything, the rising number of informed young citizens, civil society actors, and journalists in J&K indicates that the society is ready for a stronger version of the law. The demand for strengthening the RTI emerges because the public has tasted the power of transparency and understands that it can reshape the political and administrative culture of the region.
A genuinely empowered RTI regime in J&K would function as a democratic equalizer in a society marked by complex layers of authority. It would ensure that public expenditure becomes traceable, appointments become accountable, developmental projects become auditable, and welfare schemes become verifiable. It would make governance visible, and in doing so, dispel the sense of alienation that arises when decisions are taken in insulated corridors of power. Transparency does not weaken governance; it revitalizes it. It converts suspicion into trust, distance into engagement, and passive citizenship into participatory citizenship.
The cultural transformation that RTI demands is perhaps the most challenging yet the most necessary. Bureaucratic secrecy is not merely a habit; it is a worldview. It presupposes that information is dangerous, that citizens cannot be trusted, and that the state knows best. Changing this worldview requires more than legal amendments; it requires political messaging that transparency is a sign of institutional confidence, not weakness. It requires training officials to understand that democracy thrives when information circulates freely. And it requires recognizing that the demand for information is not an attack on governance but an invitation to build legitimacy.
In J&K, where the social fabric has endured turbulence, transparency carries an even deeper meaning. It becomes a vehicle through which institutions can rebuild credibility. When people understand how decisions are taken, when they see the logic behind policies, when they can verify the use of public resources, their relationship with the state becomes less adversarial and more participatory. Transparency thus becomes a mechanism of healing, a means to repair the fractures of mistrust.
A strengthened RTI in J&K would not only advance accountability but would also catalyze modernization. Digitization of records, proactive disclosure, and public data repositories would reduce dependence on individual applications. Technology, if integrated responsibly, could make governance in J&K more efficient and more transparent simultaneously. The region’s move toward e-governance, if aligned with an empowered RTI regime, could dismantle many of the obstacles that currently impede information flow.
The security dimension- often invoked to justify opacity- must be approached with balance. Genuine security concerns exist, but they do not justify blanket refusals or vague exemptions. A mature transparency regime distinguishes between sensitive information and administrative negligence. It ensures that exemptions are narrowly interpreted, justified in writing, and subject to scrutiny. Only then can the RTI retain its integrity without compromising legitimate security interests.
Ultimately, the call for giving “more teeth” to the RTI Act in Jammu and Kashmir must be seen as part of a larger democratic aspiration. It is a call for institutional honesty, administrative responsibility, and political maturity. It is not about confrontation but about constructing a governance culture in which the citizen and the state see each other as partners in shaping public life. J&K stands today at a moment when democratic expectations are rising, when citizens feel more empowered, and when institutions face the challenge- and opportunity-of building trust from the ground up. Strengthening the RTI is perhaps the most crucial step in aligning governance with these aspirations.
The deeper philosophical truth is this: transparency is not merely about accessing documents; it is about enfranchising dignity. When citizens possess the power to question, they acquire the power to shape their own political lives. In regions where political disenchantment has persisted, such empowerment is transformative. If J&K is to cultivate a stable, inclusive, and participatory democracy, transparency must be treated as foundational rather than ornamental.
In the long run, the RTI Act in J&K must evolve from a procedural mechanism into a civic ethic. It must become the lens through which the citizen views governance and the mirror through which the state views itself. A strengthened RTI would help create a public culture where power is accountable, decisions are reasoned, and institutions are trusted. It would remind the state that legitimacy is not derived from authority but from openness. And it would assure the citizen that asking questions is not an act of defiance but an act of democratic belonging.
If J&K aspires for a future anchored in dignity, participation, and trust, then strengthening the RTI is not merely advisable-it is indispensable. For the right to information is, ultimately, the right to democracy itself.
