Maharashtra RTI rules amendments trigger widespread criticism, Anna Hazare threatens hunger strike

The Maharashtra government notified revised Right to Information Rules effective July 5, 2026, significantly raising application and appeal fees for the firs...

What Happened

The Maharashtra government notified revised Right to Information Rules effective July 5, 2026, significantly raising application and appeal fees for the first time since the RTI Act came into force in 2005.
The application fee has been tripled from ₹10 to ₹30; photocopy charges raised from ₹2 to ₹5 per A4 page; digital copies, previously free, are now charged at ₹5 per page; first appeal fee set at ₹50 and second appeal fee at ₹100.
A new requirement mandates applicants to upload self-attested photo identification with every application — a condition not required under the parent Act and one that civil society warns will expose whistleblowers and activists.
Additional restrictions include a "one subject per application" rule, a 150-word limit on applications, and a provision to summarily close repeat applications.
Prominent transparency advocates and former senior officials have termed the rules "illegal" and contrary to the RTI Act's intent, with a threat of public protest if the rules are not withdrawn.

Static Topic Bridges

The Right to Information Act, 2005

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) is a landmark legislation enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. Citizens may request information from any public authority under the Act. It operates on the principle that access to information is a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech and expression).

Section 6: A citizen may seek information by submitting a written or electronic request along with the prescribed fee; Section 6(2) explicitly states that an applicant is not required to give any reason for requesting information — making the Maharashtra rule requiring disclosure of purpose legally questionable.
Section 7: The Public Information Officer (PIO) must furnish information within 30 days of receipt; within 48 hours if the matter concerns life or liberty.
Section 8: Lists exemptions — information affecting sovereignty, security, strategic/economic interests, parliamentary privileges, and trade secrets — beyond which the PIO must provide information.
Section 19: Appeals lie first to an officer senior to the PIO (First Appellate Authority, within 30–45 days), then to the State/Central Information Commission (Second Appeal, within 90 days of the FAA order).

Connection to this news: Maharashtra's fee hike and the new ID requirement are set against the parent RTI Act's framework, which intentionally kept costs minimal and anonymity intact. Critics argue the new state rules violate the spirit — and arguably the letter — of Sections 6(2) and the Act's preamble.

State Rules vs. the Parent Act: Federal Hierarchy in RTI

The RTI Act is a central legislation, but Section 28 permits state governments to make rules consistent with the Act. State rules govern fees, forms, and procedural details but cannot override substantive provisions of the parent Act. If state rules are found inconsistent with central provisions, the central law prevails under Article 254 of the Constitution.

Central RTI Rules 2012 prescribe the base fee of ₹10 for central public authorities; states set their own schedules.
The requirement under Section 6(2) that applicants need not give reasons for seeking information is a substantive provision — not a procedural one — and therefore not overridable by state rules.
Challenges to state RTI rules can be made before the State Information Commission or the High Court under Article 226.

Connection to this news: The inclusion of a "purpose disclosure" requirement in Maharashtra's new rules and the ID upload mandate are the focal points of legal challenges — both argued to override substantive protections in the parent Act.

Information Commissioners and Accountability

The RTI Act creates a two-tier appellate structure. State Information Commissions (SICs) at the state level and the Central Information Commission (CIC) at the central level hear second appeals and complaints. Commissioners are appointed by the state government/President on the recommendation of a committee. The Supreme Court (CPIO vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, 2019) held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the RTI Act, reinforcing the Act's broad reach.

Information Commissioners serve for a fixed term or until age 65, whichever is earlier (post-2019 amendment reducing the term from 5 years).
SICs have the power to impose penalties of up to ₹25,000 on errant PIOs and recommend departmental action.
Proactive disclosure under Section 4 requires public authorities to voluntarily publish key information without waiting for RTI requests.

Connection to this news: The fee revision also raises the second appeal fee to ₹100, potentially deterring citizens from approaching the SIC — the very institution designed to enforce the Act.

Key Facts & Data

RTI Act enacted: October 12, 2005 (operational)
Original central application fee: ₹10 (unchanged since 2005)
Maharashtra revised application fee: ₹30 (effective July 5, 2026)
Maharashtra revised photocopy charge: ₹5/page (up from ₹2)
Digital copy charge (new): ₹5/page (was free)
First appeal fee (new): ₹50; Second appeal fee (new): ₹100
Section 7 time limit: 30 days (general); 48 hours (life/liberty cases)
Section 8: Lists 10 categories of exempt information
Section 19 first appeal disposal: within 30 days (up to 45 days in exceptional cases)
Penalty under Section 20: up to ₹25,000 on errant PIOs