Published : 17 October 2026
•
Updated : 26 October 2026, 22:44
Shamsul Bari
R
Ruhi Naz
FILE VISUAL: STAR
The Right to Information (RTI) is widely regarded as a tool for promoting transparency and exposing corruption. But its democratic significance goes far beyond that. It enables citizens to question arbitrary decisions, challenge unfair treatment, scrutinise public expenditure, and determine whether public institutions are fulfilling their responsibilities. RTI is not simply about obtaining documents; it also ensures that those exercising public power remain accountable to the people.
Recent experiences in India and Sri Lanka illustrate these wider possibilities. They also offer important lessons for Bangladesh, where the RTI Act provides citizens with similar legal rights. Unfortunately, the law’s effectiveness has been seriously undermined by the prolonged absence of the three information commissioners for over two years.
An instructive example comes from India, where RTI applications have examined whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) and government departments have complied with Supreme Court directives to revise electoral rolls, a subject that has roiled the nation recently.
In an article published in The Wire on October 9, 2026, prominent RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak described how he sought information from the ECI and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding action taken following the court’s directives concerning individuals whose citizenship had been questioned during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court distinguished between determining eligibility for voter registration and formally deciding citizenship. It directed the ECI to refer relevant cases to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act for adjudication. The distinction is crucial: exclusion from an electoral roll does not automatically determine a person’s citizenship.
Nayak sought details of cases referred for adjudication, the authorities responsible, and communications exchanged between the ECI and the government. The responses raised troubling questions. The ECI initially said it did not hold the requested information, but later transferred the applications between departments. Responses also exceeded the statutory 30-day deadline.
The fundamental question is straightforward: how can citizens determine whether judicial directives are being implemented when responsible authorities cannot provide clear information about the action taken?
This case’s significance extends beyond India’s electoral system. Nayak used RTI to seek documentary evidence of compliance with a legal obligation, rather than relying on official assurances. Although the responses don’t conclusively establish that the directives were ignored, they expose weaknesses in administrative accountability.
This illustrates an essential democratic function of RTI: enabling citizens to compare what the law requires with what public authorities actually do.
Sri Lanka offers another example of RTI’s importance in protecting individual rights. In one case, its Right to Information Commission directed its health ministry to disclose two complaint letters a doctor facing disciplinary proceedings had sought. The ministry refused disclosure, arguing that an investigation was in progress. The commission found that the ministry had failed to show how releasing the letters would prejudice the investigation.
The principle is important. A person facing disciplinary proceedings must have a fair opportunity to know and respond to the allegations. An ongoing investigation cannot automatically justify withholding relevant information. Access to documents may be indispensable to securing a fair hearing.
Sri Lankan citizens have also used RTI to establish whether police acted on complaints and to obtain records explaining administrative decisions. Such cases demonstrate how access to information can help identify official failures, challenge arbitrary decisions, and seek remedies. They also reinforce the principle that secrecy must be justified under specific legal exemptions rather than treated as the normal practice of government.
India’s experience highlights another obstacle: delay. In Shailesh Gandhi vs Maharashtra State Information Commission (2025), the Bombay High Court emphasised that second appeals, equivalent to Bangladesh’s complaint mechanism, should be decided expeditiously, even where the law prescribes no specific deadline. The lesson applies equally to Bangladesh. A right that takes years to enforce may become meaningless to someone seeking information to challenge an injustice.
These examples show that RTI can protect individual rights, expose administrative shortcomings, and help determine whether public authorities are complying with their legal responsibilities. Access to information by itself does not guarantee justice, but it provides the evidence citizens need to pursue accountability through administrative or judicial channels.
For Bangladesh, these lessons are particularly relevant. Citizens can use the RTI Act to scrutinise public procurement, development expenditure, recruitment, delivery of essential services, and implementation of government policies. Journalists and civil society organisations can use it to verify official claims, trace public expenditure, and examine whether promised measures have actually been implemented.
RTI can also transform individual grievances into matters of wider public concern. Information on a delayed development project, an unexplained recruitment decision, or the failure to deliver public services can provide the factual basis for public debate and corrective action.
However, these rights depend on a functioning enforcement mechanism. The Information Commission in Bangladesh has remained without its three commissioners for over two years, depriving citizens of the statutory body responsible for adjudicating complaints and enforcing compliance. This institutional paralysis threatens to undermine the law’s very purpose.
The government must, therefore, act without further delay to restore the commission to full functionality. Citizens must also be encouraged to exercise their rights, while public authorities must recognise that providing information is a legal obligation, not an administrative favour.
Democracy cannot be sustained by elections alone. Citizens must be able to examine how decisions are made, how public money is spent, and whether those entrusted with authority are performing their duties.
India’s experience demonstrates how RTI can test compliance with judicial directions. Sri Lanka’s experience shows its value in protecting individual rights and challenging unjustified secrecy. Both underline a fundamental truth: democracy requires not just the right to vote but also the continuing right to question those who govern.
Ultimately, RTI enables citizens to move from suspicion to evidence, from unanswered questions to documented facts, and from passive acceptance to informed participation. Its true democratic value emerges when citizens can use information to demand accountability and seek remedies. Hence, for Bangladesh, restoring a fully functioning Information Commission is a test of the government’s commitment to democratic accountability and the people’s right to know.
Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are, respectively, chairman and deputy director (RTI) at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at [email protected].
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.