This article examines FOIA and RTI through a comparative lens—tracing their origins, scope, exemptions, challenges, and impact on democracy.
Transparency in governance is one of the strongest indicators of a healthy democracy. Citizens cannot meaningfully participate in decision-making if they are kept in the dark about how governments function, how public money is spent, or how policies are framed. Across the world, legislation guaranteeing access to information has emerged as a powerful tool to ensure that governments remain accountable to their people. Two of the most significant examples in this regard are the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of the United States and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 of India. Although born out of different political and historical contexts, both laws share a common purpose: empowering citizens by granting them the legal right to request information from public authorities.
FOIA in the U.S. is often considered the blueprint for many global freedom of information legislations. It was enacted during a period when citizens were increasingly demanding greater oversight of federal agencies, particularly amid Cold War secrecy. India’s RTI, on the other hand, is deeply rooted in grassroots activism and struggles against corruption in everyday life. While FOIA reflects a top-down legislative reform in an established democracy, RTI is the outcome of bottom-up movements in a developing country, where citizens directly demanded transparency in local governance, especially in rural welfare schemes.
*****
Origins of FOIA and RTI
The Freedom of Information Act in the United States was passed in 1966 after years of debate on balancing secrecy and openness in government. Prior to FOIA, most federal agency records were considered inaccessible unless the agencies voluntarily chose to share them. Journalists, researchers, and civil society organizations campaigned strongly against this culture of secrecy, arguing that democratic accountability demanded access to official information. President Lyndon B. Johnson reluctantly signed FOIA into law on July 4, 1966—symbolically on U.S. Independence Day—signaling a commitment to openness, even though he himself had doubts about its implications for national security and administration. Over the years, FOIA was amended multiple times: the Electronic FOIA Amendments (1996) addressed the digital era by mandating electronic publication of certain documents, while the FOIA Improvement Act (2016) strengthened provisions around proactive disclosure and the presumption of openness.
India’s path was different but equally powerful. In the 1990s, rural communities in Rajasthan, led by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), demanded access to government records to uncover corruption in local development works. Villagers insisted on knowing how funds allocated for roads, schools, and welfare schemes were being used, as they observed stark mismatches between official claims and ground realities. This grassroots demand evolved into a nationwide movement for transparency, supported by civil society groups, academics, and activists. Initially, the Indian government introduced the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, but it remained ineffective because it lacked strong enforcement mechanisms. Following continued pressure, the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted, which replaced the earlier law. The RTI Act went much further, mandating the appointment of Public Information Officers (PIOs), establishing independent Information Commissions, and including penalties for non-compliance. It became one of the most progressive transparency laws in the world.
Thus, while FOIA was shaped by institutional reform in a mature democracy, RTI was the product of grassroots struggles in a developing country. Both, however, share the common democratic DNA of enabling citizens to pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding governance.
*****
Scope and Reach
The scope of these legislations is crucial in determining how much power they actually confer to citizens. In the United States, FOIA applies specifically to federal executive branch agencies. This includes departments like Defense, Justice, Treasury, and Health, as well as regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). However, FOIA does not apply to the President, members of Congress, the federal judiciary, or state and local governments. Citizens seeking state-level information must rely on state-specific freedom of information laws, which vary significantly in strength and implementation. This limitation reflects the federal structure of the U.S. but also restricts the universality of FOIA’s reach.
India’s RTI Act, 2005, in contrast, is far more expansive. It covers not just the Union government but also state governments, district administrations, municipal bodies, panchayats, and even non-governmental organizations that are substantially funded by the government. This makes RTI particularly empowering for citizens at the grassroots level who can demand accountability from local schools, ration shops, hospitals, and development authorities. For example, a villager can ask the local panchayat how much money was spent on building a road in their village, or a citizen can ask a public hospital about the allocation of medicines. By covering multiple tiers of governance, RTI ensures that transparency is not limited to the national stage but extends into people’s everyday interactions with public authorities.
Another unique feature of India’s RTI is its emphasis on proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the Act. Public authorities are required to voluntarily disclose information about their functioning, budgets, decision-making processes, and expenditure, reducing the need for citizens to file individual requests. Although compliance with this provision is weak, its presence reflects a broader vision of governance that is open by default rather than secret by default.
Therefore, while FOIA’s scope is narrower and more centralized, RTI casts a wider net, embedding transparency across the entire spectrum of governance in India.
*****
Exemptions and Limitations
No transparency law can provide absolute access to all information. Both FOIA and RTI acknowledge that certain categories of information must remain confidential for reasons of national security, privacy, or administrative efficiency.
Under FOIA, there are nine exemptions. These include classified defense and foreign policy information, trade secrets, internal agency deliberations, law enforcement records, and matters that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. While these exemptions are necessary, critics often argue that U.S. agencies interpret them too broadly, using them as shields to deny access to information that could embarrass or expose inefficiencies. For example, large portions of documents are frequently redacted under the national security exemption, sometimes unnecessarily, leading to accusations of over-classification and excessive secrecy.
India’s RTI Act also contains exemptions under Section 8. These include matters affecting national security, strategic interests, sovereignty, cabinet papers, commercial confidence, intellectual property, and information that could endanger the life or safety of individuals. However, the RTI Act contains a particularly powerful clause absent in FOIA: the public interest override. This means that even exempted information may be disclosed if the larger public good outweighs the harm of disclosure. For instance, if information about environmental damage caused by a company is classified as commercial confidence, it can still be released if public health is at risk. This makes RTI a more citizen-centric law in principle.
Despite this strength, RTI faces practical challenges. Bureaucrats sometimes misuse exemptions to deny information arbitrarily, citing vague concerns about security or confidentiality. Courts in India have occasionally had to step in to clarify the scope of exemptions, reinforcing that secrecy must remain the exception, not the norm.
Both FOIA and RTI thus embody the constant democratic tension between transparency and confidentiality. The balance between these competing demands determines how truly effective these laws are in practice.
(India CSR)
