• Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI Re-Examination
• Simple Breakdown Table for Everyone
• Key Proposals and the Backlog Stats
• Implications Demarcated by Stakeholder
• What Happens Next: Timeline
• Filing RTIs amid Changes: Six-Step Guide
• Frequently Asked Questions

The table of contents collapses automatically across the wiki \u2014 click the heading to expand.

The Economic Survey is the Finance Ministry's yearly report on the Indian economy, tabled in Parliament a day before the Union Budget. The Economic Survey 2025-26 was tabled on 31 January 2026. Media coverage reports that its chapter on governance and institutions returned to a long-running debate: does the Right to Information Act, 2005 need a re-examination?

According to the reported text, the Survey flags two concerns. First, a growing pendency before the Information Commissions \u2014 widely cited at around 4.13 lakh cases across the Central and State Commissions combined in early 2026. Second, the Survey raises a concern that open disclosure of internal government discussions (often called “deliberative processes” \u2014 which means the file notes, draft opinions, and policy debates that happen inside a ministry before a decision is taken) can, in its view, chill candid advice-giving among officers.

Two broad proposals have been reported in connection with the Survey: a narrow exemption for deliberative processes that would shield internal policy drafts, and a discussion of a ministerial review or “veto-like” check on sensitive denials. As of 20 April 2026, none of this has become law. No amendment Bill has been tabled. The Commissions continue to apply the existing text of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as most recently amended by the DPDP Rules, 2025 substitution of Section 8(1)(j) on 14 November 2025.

This page pulls together what is on the record, what the implications would be if the reported proposals carry, and what an applicant can do today to file RTIs that succeed under either the current text or any tightened version of it. All specific numbers below are reported figures; verify against the Economic Survey PDF and the Commissions' annual returns before citing.

Plain-language explanation of the reported proposals. The middle column quotes or paraphrases the Survey's reported reasoning; the right column explains what the change, if passed, would mean in practice.

An example a first-time applicant can recognise. Asking a Ministry for the final approved Cabinet Note on a scheme is still answerable under the current Act. Asking for the file notings on the earlier drafts of that Note would, under a “deliberative process” carve-out, face a new ground of refusal \u2014 though the Section 8(2) public-interest override would continue to apply.

For context on the drafting patterns that already work, see the RTI Query Builder and the online filing guide.

A rough, widely-cited figure for combined pendency across the Central Information Commission and the twenty-nine State Information Commissions in early 2026 is around 4.13 lakh cases. Authoritative figures are released in the Commissions' own annual reports and in the DoPT Annual Report on the RTI Act. Three structural factors sit behind the number:

• Vacancies at the top. Information Commissions have frequently operated with unfilled Commissioner posts, slowing the hearing lists.
• Staffing at the clerical level. Junior staff strength in the Commissions has not kept pace with the growth in appeals.
• Volume at the source. Indians file well over ten lakh RTI applications every year with Central and State public authorities. Even a small refusal rate at the PIO stage produces a large appeal inflow.

The Survey's proposed remedy on the capacity side \u2014 fill sanctioned posts, staff the Commissions \u2014 is the least controversial item and sits within existing statutory powers. Section 12 and Section 15 of the Right to Information Act already provide for the constitution of the Central and State Commissions; no new law is required to fill those benches.

For the arc of changes across ten years \u2014 the RTI Amendment Act 2019, the RTI Rules 2019, the Anjali Bhardwaj ruling, the Subhash Chandra Agarwal Constitution Bench, and the DPDP substitution \u2014 see The RTI Act: a decade of change, 2015 to 2025.

• Immediate effect: none. The Act is unchanged. File the way you would last month.
• If a “deliberative process” exemption is enacted you will still get final orders, decisions, records, measurements, payments. You may lose access to draft files and internal notes.
• Always plead Section 8(2) public interest in the application itself where personal data is implicated \u2014 see DPDP Act vs RTI \u2014 2026 position.
• Draft the request narrowly around a named record, a named file, a named period. The Query Builder has copy-paste templates for twelve common subjects.

• No new duties. The Section 5, 6, 7, 11 duties of a PIO do not change until Parliament acts.
• Deliberative-process claims are premature. Until a Bill is notified, a PIO who refuses on a “deliberative process” ground is refusing outside the statutory grounds of Section 8 and 9 \u2014 which is itself an appealable lapse.
• Document reasoning in the file: every refusal needs the specific clause, the specific fact pattern, and the applicant's appeal rights. See Guide for PIOs and Template: standard PIO reply.

• Expect more public-interest pleas. Applicants are citing Section 8(2) aggressively post-DPDP.
• Proportionality test runs both ways. The Puttaswamy framework (see K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)) requires weighing privacy harm against transparency benefit, case by case.
• Speaking orders save appeals. A reasoned order at Section 19(1) stage is often the difference between a closed matter and a second appeal that takes eighteen months to reach a Commission bench. See Guide for FAAs and Template: FAA speaking order.

• Capacity-side pressure is the immediate story. If the sanctioned strength of Commissioners is filled, pendency stabilises regardless of statutory change.
• First CIC orders under the amended Section 8(1)(j) are the bellwether. The drafting register observed so far: proportionality citation, Section 10 severance as default, public-interest tests applied to the specific record rather than the general subject.

• Published records remain accessible. Final policies, gazette notifications, court orders, audit reports, statistical releases \u2014 no change.
• Internal drafts at risk. If a “deliberative process” exemption carries, access to drafts, inter-ministerial notes, and Cabinet-level file notings will tighten. See the Supreme Court's test in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) for the current position on file notings \u2014 still binding.
• Academic theses themselves are safe. The Delhi HC December 2024 direction on PhD theses remains good law.

• Any narrowing of Section 8 is writable. Constitutional challenge sits under Article 19(1)(a) and Puttaswamy proportionality.
• Test cases matter. Document PIO refusals that use “deliberative process” or “veto-like” language before the statute authorises it. Those refusals are appealable now \u2014 and the documentation becomes the evidentiary base for later litigation.
• Contribute documented refusals via the contribute guide so the pattern is visible across the wiki.

Three tracks of activity to watch over the next nine months:

1. Lok Sabha calendar. For any narrowing amendment to land, the Bill must be introduced in Parliament, referred to a Standing Committee, reported back, and passed in both Houses. The budget session typically concludes in April; the monsoon session begins in July. No Bill has been introduced as of 20 April 2026.
2. Commission pendency stats. The annual reports of the Central Information Commission and the State Commissions for the financial year 2025-26 are typically released between July and November. These will either confirm or revise the widely-cited 4.13 lakh figure.
3. Writ review. If a Bill passes, constitutional challenge will likely reach the Supreme Court within weeks. Watch ADR-style petitions under Article 19(1)(a), and the proportionality test from //K.S. Puttaswamy//.

1. Pick the right jurisdiction. Central matters on rtionline.gov.in. State matters at the State PIO. See State vs Central RTI for the jurisdictional test.
2. Ask for a document, not an explanation. “Certified copy of the sanction order on file number X dated Y” is answerable. “Why was my claim rejected?” is not. Full pattern guide: Why RTI Applications Get Rejected.
3. Name the record. File number, date, office, period \u2014 all four, every time.
4. Plead public interest up front if the request touches third-party personal data. This puts Section 8(2) on the record from day one, under the amended Section 8(1)(j) framework.
5. Stay within 3,000 characters on the Central portal. If the request is longer, split into two applications.
6. Diary the thirty-day clock. On day 31 without a reply, file the first appeal under Section 19(1) \u2014 free of cost, no waiting required. Use the first-appeal template.

For the complete twelve-category template set see the RTI Query Builder.

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 \u2014 current text.
• RTI Act, 2005 \u2014 summary, sections, and notes.
• DPDP Rules, 2025 \u2014 the amendment to Section 8(1)(j).
• PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025.
• DPDP Act vs RTI \u2014 2026 current position.
• The RTI Act \u2014 a decade of change, 2015 to 2025.
• How to File RTI Online in India \u2014 2026 step-by-step.
• Why RTI Applications Get Rejected.
• RTI Query Builder \u2014 drafting templates.
• State RTI vs Central RTI.
• Navigating rtionline.gov.in.
• FAQ \u2014 twenty-five most-asked RTI questions.
• Contribute to RTI Wiki.
• Guide for PIOs.
• Guide for FAAs.
• Template: first appeal.
• Template: second appeal.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
• Electoral Bonds (2024).
• Case law library.

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 2(f), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 24.
2. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
4. Economic Survey 2025-26, Government of India, tabled 31 January 2026. Primary source: the PDF on indiabudget.gov.in. All specific figures in this page should be verified against the primary PDF.
5. Department of Personnel and Training, Annual Report on the Right to Information Act, most recent issue.
6. Central Information Commission annual reports, cic.gov.in.
7. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
8. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
9. Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
10. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
11. Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India (2019).
12. CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Constitution Bench, Supreme Court of India (2020).
13. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds), Supreme Court of India, 15 February 2024.

20 April 2026. Watch the monsoon-session Lok Sabha calendar and the FY 2025-26 annual reports of the Information Commissions.