Activists Demand Withdrawal of Maharashtra RTI Rules 2026 in Legal Notice
A group of prominent transparency activists, journalists, and former information officials in Mumbai have served a legal notice to the Maharashtra government demanding the complete withdrawal of the newly notified Maharashtra RTI Rules, 2026. The notice, which gives the state a 15-day ultimatum, was addressed to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, the chief secretary, and the principal secretary of the general administration department.
The legal notice was issued on behalf of former central information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, RTI activist Prahlad Kachare, journalist Vijay Kumbhar, senior journalist Vinita Deshmukh, Sajag Nagrik Manch representatives Vivek Velankar and Jugal Rathi, and transparency campaigner Mohammed Afzal, alongside other RTI users.
Although the state government recently withdrew a controversial provision that would have required applicants to state their purpose for seeking information, activists contend that several other newly introduced provisions impose barriers inconsistent with the central RTI Act, 2005. The 11-page notice argues that the state's power to frame rules under Section 27 of the RTI Act is limited to carrying out the provisions of the parent law and cannot be used to create substantive restrictions.
Among the key objections is a new requirement for applicants to submit a self-attested photo identity proof. The activists argue this violates Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, which states applicants cannot be asked to provide personal details beyond those necessary for communication. They warn this compulsory submission could discourage whistle-blowers and journalists.
Additionally, the notice challenges restrictions limiting applications to a single subject and 150 words. The activists argue this will force citizens to file multiple applications and pay multiple fees for a single project or policy decision.
The revised fee structure is also a major point of contention. The rules increase the application fee to Rs 30 and introduce appeal fees of Rs 50 before the first appellate authority and Rs 100 before the State Information Commission. The notice argues this financial burden will deter citizens, particularly in rural areas, and violates the complete fee exemptions granted to below-poverty-line applicants by Parliament.
Further objections were raised against provisions allowing appeals and complaints to be dismissed for non-prosecution or to abate upon the death of an appellant. The activists also criticized the lack of draft rules, public consultation, or impact assessments before the notification was issued.
If the state government does not withdraw the rules within 15 days, the signatories stated they reserve the right to challenge the validity of the rules in the Bombay High Court.
