NEW DELHI: While the Right To Information (RTI) movement in Jammu and Kashmir is visibly gaining ground, the backlogs have increased phenomenally. Even more glaringly, the Union Territory of Ladakh remains a statistical void. Its RTI data has been absent from national records since its creation in October 2019, according to a deep-dive analysis of the Central Information Commission's annual reports for 2024-25 and 2023-24 by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI).
The report is the result of detailed research and analysis by CHRI’s Director, Venkatesh Nayak.
As for Jammu and Kashmir, while the RTI applications have gone up, so have the backlogs.
Ladakh: Six Years of Silence
Despite being home to a "vibrant group of RTI activists", acknowledged by CHRI, which had earlier promoted transparency work in the undivided Jammu and Kashmir, the Ladakh UT administration has never once submitted its RTI statistics to the CIC. More troublingly, the Commission has not commented on this lapse in any of its annual reports.
CHRI's analysis underlines that this is not a bureaucratic oversight that can be quietly overlooked. With 2,914 public authorities registered on the RTI Online Portal as of the time of analysis, the CIC's claim of "100% compliance" based on reports from only 2,303 public authorities is itself questionable.
Ladakh's absence is the most glaring illustration of that gap.
J&K: RTI Usage Surges, But Backlogs Mount
Jammu and Kashmir presents a sharply contrasting picture. The UT recorded a 25.5% increase in RTI applications received in 2024-25 compared to the previous year, among the highest growth rates of any Union Territory.
Among the UTs, GNCTD transferred 43.68% of the RTIs received in 2024-25 while J&K transferred almost 28% of the RTIs received between public authorities. Other UTs transferred fewer RTIs between their public authorities.
The number of RTIs to which J&K authorities replied also rose from 9,998 in 2023-24 to 11,579 in 2024-25. However, the UT's backlog surged by 63.02%, pointing to a system struggling to keep pace with the rising tide of citizens seeking information.
On the positive side, J&K reported a 23.77% increase in fee collections. This includes both application and additional fees, and suggests that more RTI applicants are receiving substantive responses rather than being turned away.
J&K's record on rejections was also relatively restrained. Of the 288 rejection cases accounted for in the clause-wise data, only 53 fell under the vague "others" category - a category that accounts for nearly 35% of all rejections nationally.
J&K authorities relied more frequently on Section 8(1)(h), which exempts disclosure of investigation or prosecution-related information, than on the personal privacy clause - a pattern consistent with the previous year.
On first appeals, J&K received 1,047 cases, nearly 460 more than in 2023-24. Its 184 First Appellate Authorities disposed of 877 of these (83.76%), though the average workload per FAA jumped sharply as the number of FAAs fell from 299 the previous year.
PMO, ECI and the Accountability Deficit
Despite receiving fewer RTI applications in 2024-25 than the year before (9,074 compared to 9,430), the PMO's backlog grew by 282 cases. Its lone First Appellate Authority disposed of only 78 of 1,268 first appeals - a disposal rate of 6.15%, the lowest among all 12 key public authorities studied. In 2023-24 the rate was slightly better at 7%.
236 of the 246 RTIs rejected by the PMO in 2024-25 were under the "others" category, not under any of the ten exemption clauses specified in the RTI Act. This proportion was similarly high in 2023-24, when 178 of 196 rejections belonged to this category.
The ECI reported zero rejections for the second consecutive year. It received 480 first appeals in 2024-25. Its two FAAs disposed of only 9 of these (1.88%), down sharply from 64 disposals out of 222 appeals the previous year.
CHRI's own experience illuminates why the zero-rejection claim is misleading. Venkatesh Nayak himself filed RTI applications seeking copies of Index Cards submitted by Returning Officers during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as well as details of expenditure-sensitive constituencies and Expenditure Observer reports.
The CPIOs denied both requests - one citing disproportionate diversion of resources under Section 7(9), and another additionally invoking Section 8(1)(g). Several other RTIs about the 2024 general elections were disposed of with the claim that the ECI does not hold the information and will not transfer the applications to state authorities.
None of these refusals were reported by the ECI as "rejections" to the CIC.
NITI Aayog received fewer RTIs in 2024-25 than the previous year, but its backlog grew by 71 cases. It also transferred 22.86% of the RTIs it received higher than most key public authorities.
Cabinet Secretariat transferred 51.66% of RTIs it received in 2024-25 - one in every two applications - the highest transfer rate of any key public authority studied.
Armed Forces Transparency Record
The report places the Indian armed forces under sharp focus for the sheer scale of its RTI backlog and rejection figures, alongside a notable change in how it handles national security claims.
RTI applications received by the Army jumped 23.52% in 2024-25 compared to the previous year. This is the second-highest growth rate among the 12 key public authorities tracked in the study. Yet the Army's backlog figure of 1,07,601 RTI applications remained identical in both 2023-24 and 2024-25. CHRI notes that the CIC has not thought fit to examine.
Rejections by the Army more than doubled - from 1,357 in 2023-24 to 2,807 in 2024-25, the highest among the 12 key public authorities. Of these, 2,063 were rejected under the catch-all "others" category rather than any of the legally specified exemption clauses. However, CHRI pointedly notes that of the 744 cases where the Army did cite a specific legal ground for rejection, 737 were to protect personal privacy under Section 8(1)(j). The national security clause, Section 8(1)(a), was invoked in just one case in 2024-25, down from 60 the previous year.
"For those who think that truckloads of RTI applications are filed with the Indian Army every year threatening our national security, it needs to be pointed out that Section 8(1)(a) was invoked in one case only in 2024-25," the CHRI report states.
On first appeals, the Army received 9,090 cases. Yet its 479 First Appellate Authorities disposed of only 693 (7.6%), an average of just 1.45 cases per FAA per year. The CIC has not queried this performance.
The Indian Air Force saw RTI filings rise 20.88% in 2024-25, and its backlog grew by 2,999 cases. Its rejection rate, however, was more defensible: only 87 of 623 cases were rejected under the "others" category. On first appeals, eight FAAs disposed of 672 of 937 cases received (71.72%) — a far stronger performance than the Army's.
The Indian Navy, by contrast, showed improvement. It was among the few key public authorities to report a reduction in RTI backlog. Its FAA disposed of 260 of 405 first appeals received (64.19%), up from 60.23% the previous year.
The Ministry of Defence received 1.15 lakh RTI applications in 2024-25, 29,433 more than the previous year, making it the fifth-largest recipient nationally. With 121 fewer CPIOs to handle a significantly larger workload, the average load per officer rose from 41.95 RTIs per year to 59.75. The Ministry also transferred 35.33% of RTIs it received to other public authorities — the second-highest transfer rate among all ministries.
It accounted for 8.51% of all rejections nationally, placing it third behind Finance and Home Affairs.
‘Does the CIC Read the Data?’
The CHRI report calls to question the CIC's own rigour in compiling and verifying the data it publishes. The report documents a discrepancy of 561 between the total rejections cited in one section of the annual report (58,501) and the figure that emerges from the clause-wise data table (57,985). Penalty figures reported by ministries - some as low as Rs. 1 or Rs. 2 - are far below the minimum Rs. 250 penalty the RTI Act permits, yet have apparently passed unchecked.
"Does the CIC even read the data tables put together before they are published and tabled in Parliament is a fundamental question that they must answer," the CHRI report concludes.
After 21 years of the RTI Act's implementation, the Commission's role, CHRI argues, must evolve from mere accountant of statistics to auditor of transparency - one that asks not just how many RTIs were filed, but why so many remain unanswered, unresolved, or quietly buried under a category called "others."
Full report can be seen below.
Have you liked the news article?