Maharashtra RTI rules amendments trigger criticism

This month, the Maharashtra government issued a notification amending certain provisions of the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026. The amendments, which are scheduled to come into effect on July 5, have drawn criticism from social activists. Veteran activist Anna Hazare has threatened to go on an indefinite hunger strike from July 5 if the government does not withdraw the amendments.

What are these amendments? And what do the RTI rules say? The Hindu explains.

Can the State government amend the rules?

The Maharashtra government’s General Administration Department (GAD) on June 12 issued a gazette notification replacing the RTI Rules, 2005, with new provisions under the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, to be implemented from July 5.

Under Section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the State government has the authority to frame rules relating to the procedure for seeking information under the Act. This includes the fee structure, hearing procedure, technical requirements for applications and related administrative matters.

Which amendments are controversial?

RTI request fee: The amendments include changes to the application and appeal fees. After 20 years, the application fee will be increased from ₹10 to ₹30. The fee for photocopies of documents has been raised from ₹2 per A4 page to ₹5 per page. For scanned or digitally supplied copies, a fee of ₹5 per page will be charged, whereas such copies were previously provided free of cost. The first and second appeals will attract fees of ₹50 and ₹100, respectively.

For example, a 20-page document will now cost ₹130, compared with ₹50 earlier. However, applicants below the poverty line remain fully exempt.

Mandatory photo ID: Social activists have primarily objected to the newly introduced requirement of submitting a photo identity document and stating a purpose, arguing that it could endanger whistleblowers and RTI applicants. They also contend that it may prevent groups with lower levels of formal documentation from filing RTI applications.

The new rules require applicants to attach a self-attested photo identity document along with the RTI request. The current procedure does not require documentary proof other than an Aadhaar number. According to the gazette notification, the purpose of the photo ID requirement is to establish that the applicant is an Indian citizen, since Section 3 of the RTI Act restricts the right to information to Indian citizens.

“Provided that, in case the request made relates to more than one subject matter, the Public Information Officer may respond to the request relating to the first subject matter only and may advise the applicant to make a separate application for each of the other subject matters,” the gazette states.

Mentioning the purpose: The provision requiring applicants to state the purpose of seeking information has since been withdrawn by the State government, as it conflicted with Section 6(2) of the parent Act, which states: “An applicant making a request under sub-section (1) shall not be required to give any reasons for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.”

The GAD’s June 19 notification revised the application format prescribed on June 12.

Can the provisions be used to reject RTI applications?

Another provision stipulates “one subject per application” and imposes a 150-word limit. Activists argue that this provision could be used to reject RTI applications.

Jitendra Ghadge said, “If the RTI is for the RERA Mumbai department and I am fetching information from that department, then why is it a problem? They want to ensure the RTIs are rejected using this provision.”

Under the rules, the Public Information Officer is required to respond only to the first subject and advise the applicant to file separate applications for the remaining subjects. Activists argue that this would also increase the cost of filing RTI applications.

What are the other new provisions?

Other provisions include a bar on legal representation during Information Commission hearings, dismissal of cases if the applicant is absent during the hearing, closure of applications upon the applicant’s death, and a prohibition on repeat applications.

What has not changed?

The maximum penalty on a Public Information Officer for failing, without reasonable cause, to comply with the RTI Act remains ₹250 per day, subject to a maximum of ₹25,000.