It has been exactly 21 years since India got itself the Right to Information law. I remember the exuberance of that moment, with the world acknowledging it as an exemplar of how democracy can be deepened. It was argued that it is only through access to information can Article 19(1)a (the right to freedom of expression) achieve full fruition. It also became a crucial tool for investigative journalism.This government’s attempts to undermine it began right from the days Narendra Modi was campaigning to become prime minister in 2014. His contempt for the law came across in a question he put to election crowds: ‘Has the RTI given you something for your stomach?’ The years in power only added to the vexation, as intrepid transparency activists deployed the RTI to pose searching questions, including the earliest ones on what became of the promised Rs 15 lakh that were to come into people’s bank accounts and where the PM’s graduation certificate was. These queries were rebuffed through various stratagems. Queries on the PM Cares Fund, for instance, were fobbed off with the lofty claim that it was a “public charitable trust” not a “public authority”, and therefore cannot invite RTI scrutiny.But it was not just individual responses, the larger effort was to render the law ineffectual. The edifice envisaged in the 2005 law to ensure its smooth functioning was systematically undermined, with Central and state information commissions kept understaffed and headless, leading to inevitable delays in responses. By 2019, the Union government moved to tighten its grip on the institution by altering the terms of employment for information commissioners, whether at the state or Central level, to ensure they remained loyal to their political bosses. Information Commissioners were now required to follow directives issued by the PMO which often translated to the outright denial of the information sought. In 2020, at the height of the pandemic when crucial information was vital for people facing insufferable conditions, the Satark Nagrik Sangathan reported that 21 of 29 Information Commissions were not holding any hearings. In 2023-2025 came the most daring attempt at capturing and destroying the act when the Digital Personal Data Protection Act followed by the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules were passed. Now information could be denied if it fell in the realm of “personal information”. While the earlier version of the RTI law allowed access to private information if the “larger public interest” demanded it, the present law did not recognize anything like “public interest”.So audacious was this move that even organisations owned by Modi government’s media chums like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani came together as part of a 21-member media group, the Digital News Publishers Association, and approached the Supreme Court to strike down these provisions. They argued that the law would rob the news business of its power to investigate a story by requiring it to get permission from those sought to be investigated. As one of their lawyers, as reported in the New York Times, argued the law changed “the whole concept of what is news…If we have to ask for permission, newsrooms will shut down.”The fact is that the RTI has over the years been immensely important to prise open many a governmental black box, whether it was the 2010 Adarsh Housing Scam or the more recent Electoral Bonds – the notorious system adopted in 2018 by this government to allow anonymous donations to political parties, most of which flowed seamlessly and ceaselessly into ruling party coffers potentially enabling secret quid pro quo deals. If the Supreme Court was forced to strike down the Bonds as “unconstitutional” in 2024, it was because of the long and patient labour of transparency advocates and journalists, many of whom used the RTI law to gain vital data.Today the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has become the latest issue of vital public concern. Introduced in June 2026 to supposedly “cleanse” electoral rolls, it has led to 130 million Indians being disenfranchised. That the majority of these people are those unlikely to be BJP voters is just one of the intriguing coincidences of the exercise. Once again a black box of information had to be forced open and once again RTI proved invaluable. This is by no means a comprehensive list but let me flag some of the important RTI attempts to breach the wall of subterfuge the ECI has built to disenfranchise millions. Shortly after SIR was announced Anjali Bhardwaj approached the ECI with an RTI asking for records, file notings and correspondence related to SIR and who took the decision to implement it. That resulted in the first forward defence stroke played by the ECI, a stroke that was repeated infinitum thereafter. It instructed her to read its announcement of SIR made on June 24, 2025, claiming there was no further information available. When Ayushi Kar and Harshitha Manwani of Reporters’ Collective asked for decision making details before SIR was introduced before the Bihar polls that November, once again we see that famous stroke. Kar and Manwani write: “The ECI failed to acknowledge the existence of such files and records, despite being legally obligated to maintain them meticulously. Under the RTI Act, withholding these records from citizens or destroying them is illegal” (‘A Dead Weblink: The Election Commission of India Demands Citizens’ Records but Withholds Its Own Under RTI Law’, the Reporters Collective, August 29, 2025).Ironically even in denials to queries, important information can be gleaned. MA Mujeeb Ayyub filed a detailed RTI asking not just for the name and version of the software, application or AI platform used to detect errors or inconsistencies in voter data and whether such a system automatically flags records for verification, correction or deletion but also whether AI, machine learning, predictive analytics or automated decision support tools were used at any stage, and if so what were the safeguards against false positives and wrongful flagging of genuine electors and whether there is an authority that reviews or approves flagged anomalies before action is taken on a voter’s record (‘Election Commission Cites ‘Trade Secrets’ to Deny Information on Software Used in SIR, RTI Reveals’, October 25). The ECI information dodged almost all the queries on various pretexts but what it could not prevent was the conclusion that it had little confidence that the infotech used in the exercise could stand up to public scrutiny.In September, Indian Express’s Ritika Chopra broke what was perhaps the most consequential story of the year which exposed the internal dissent within the ECI (‘14 times in 10 months, two Election Commissioners objected on record to poll panel steps’, The Indian Express, Sept 23). Veteran RTI petitioner, Commodore (Retd) Lokesh Batra followed it up by approaching the ECI with RTIs seeking documents recording their dissent. He did not receive a reply (‘30 Day Limit Lapses But ECI Yet to Reply to RTI Request for Two Election Commissioners’ Dissent’, October 28). The purpose of this silence was made clear when the ECI came up with an affidavit in the Supreme Court claiming all major decisions taken were unanimous.The fact is that the wall the ECI has erected around itself could well become its tomb. This August, Venkatesh Nayak, Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi, filed RTI applications to find out, among other issues, whether the ECI had complied with the Supreme Court’s orders and whether the Union home ministry has identified the “competent authority” to adjudicate on the citizenship status of persons the ECI had identified as “ineligible” to vote (‘RTI Reveals: In SIR, Purging of ‘Ineligibles” from the Voter Lists Might be a Bogey’, October 9). Nayak’s RTI queries were fobbed off, but they pointed to a deeper malaise: Is a constitutional body like the ECI deliberately ignoring orders from the country’s highest court?Mediacide and its consequencesEarlier this month, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, came out with a Report entitled, ‘Truth under the rubble: media in the time of genocide’. In the introductory note, the report examines how the destruction of truth became an integral part of the destruction of a people. It identifies three interconnected patterns: One, the elimination of Palestinian media workers through killing, maiming, arbitrary detention, torture, intimidation and the systematic labelling of them as “terrorists” in order to suppress the documentation of the crimes; two, the simultaneous construction of an information regime in Israel through media restrictions, censorship, propaganda, hate speech, genocidal incitement and denial; three, these efforts were furthered by influential international media and digital platforms, which systematically marginalised Palestinian voices while reproducing Israeli narratives… As the report notes, this is what mediacide looks like.The report also underlines that under international law, journalists in armed conflict are civilians, protected unless they directly participate in hostilities…They cannot be targeted. This is a cardinal rule and it has been torn to shreds by the Israeli war machine.+++Readers Write In…Wrong order of authorshipPooja Choksi, the lead author of the piece, ‘Beyond Tree Planting, Why India’s Ecological Restoration Drives Need Revamping’, was justifiably upset with the order of authorship. I am writing to you regarding the incorrect authorship order of the recently published analysis, Beyond Tree Planting, Why India’s Ecological Restoration Drives Need Revamping (August 18) in the Wire’s Environment section. I submitted this piece on August 10. The correct authorship order was noted in the original submission, i.e., me as primary author and my colleague, Forrest Fleischman (copied on this email), as second author. The Wire responded on August 17 that they would run the piece. However, they did not let me know when they would run it. A friend found it published online on August 18, and sent me a link. First, I think it is unprofessional of the Wire not to notify me of the edits/changes they were making to the piece before publishing it. Second, and most importantly, the Wire changed the authorship order without consulting me or Forrest. Unlike our original submission, the authorship order on the article was switched to make Forrest (the second author) primary author in the byline. This article was promoted online on social media channels with this incorrect authorship order. On the website homepage, the quick link to the article, in fact, only lists Forrest as the author. My name is nowhere to be found.I wrote to the Wire requesting that the authorship order be corrected on Aug 18 and again, on August 19. There has been no response from the editorial team, and the authorship order remained incorrect online. I had a very high opinion of the Wire until this happened. It is extremely disheartening that it takes the authorship order so lightly, reflecting poor ethics in publishing. The published order gives the impression that Forrest Fleischman, an internationally well-known, male professor, was the primary author of this work. His significant contributions to the article are appropriately recognised by his position as second author. I struggle to see any reason for this change except that someone in the editorial team assumed that he had to be the primary author of this analysis, and that I, an Indian woman, who is junior to Forrest in my field of work, could not have been the primary writer. It seems to me that this switch is a result of a colonial hangover that led the editorial team to assume that I did not do, or could never have done, the heavy lifting on this piece. Or was this switch simply a means of capitalising on Forrest’s higher profile? Whatever the reason, had there been any confusion about authorship order, it should have been communicated to me or Forrest prior to publication. My response: I fully understand your indignation over the reversal of the order of authorship, and I was glad to note that it has been corrected since. I am also sorry that there was no direct response from the Wire, partly because I happened to be travelling in August and September.Editor’s note: The Wire credits authors alphabetically, but changed the order for this particular piece after this communication from Pooja Choksi. Editors wrote back to Choksi immediately after receiving her emails.+++Premature celebrationsThe writer of this letter did not want it to be published. It was only after he was told that it would be anonymized that he agreed to its publication. With regard to the piece, ‘It’s a Terrible Time to be a Journalist in Modi’s India’ (October 17), as a citizen of India we should all be concerned and deeply so… Will the next regime (if and when it comes) be forced to follow these tactics to deal with the divided and fragmented media? I worry for my country.Some columnists in The Wire and other publications seem to be celebrating the “impending exit” of this regime a little too soon. I am afraid these guys are too entrenched to be dislodged easily. They have manipulated the psyche of the people.Some very senior journalists (real veterans in the field) who have done some real slogging as reporters and come up the hard way (for 50 years) are now running some successful publications. But they hardly, if ever, say anything critical of the establishment! They are more like businesspersons than journalists.+++A WhatsApp ‘Dimagi Naxal’ groupWire reader, Santosh Kumar, has an idea…Modi is good at branding. We have Plastic Free India, Garbage Mukt Bharat, open defecation-less India! It is never ending the coinages Narendra Modi has created. But we still get our provisions/veggies in plastic bags; we can still see garbage piled up on the roadside; sadly, the cows, mother to many, scrounge around for food and end up eating plastic bags. As for open defecation, the less said the better. Wonder why we can’t join hands and set up a WhatsApp Dimagi Naxal (Urban/Rural) University where we could exchange our ideas. Any takers?+++Umar Khalid an ‘activist’?Wire reader, Vrun Rajpurohit, wants to know why Umar Khalid is described as an ‘activist’ in Wire’s coverage of his case.I am a reader of the Wire and I am writing to raise a question about a matter of editorial language. I have noticed that Umar Khalid is often described in your coverage as an “activist.” I would like to ask on what basis is this description used, and whether your editorial team applies it as a neutral term of fact or as a characterisation carrying its own implication.My concern is this: the word “activist” is not a neutral descriptor. It suggests a person engaged in legitimate civic or social advocacy. Umar Khalid is an accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, and the seriousness of the allegations against him is a matter of public record. I would therefore ask whether the Wire believes that describing an accused person in this way is consistent with the standards of accuracy and fairness it sets for itself, and whether the same term would be applied to accused persons whose politics your editorial line does not favour.I am not asking you to prejudge the case, which is for the courts. I am asking a question about editorial consistency: on what principle does a news organisation choose the label “activist,” and would you apply it even-handedly across the political spectrum?I would be grateful for a response and, if you consider my reading mistaken, for an explanation of your editorial policy on such descriptions.My response: As you no doubt know, Umar Khalid has spent six years in prison and his trial has not even begun. There has been no judicial ruling on his guilt although the State has framed the case against him under the UAPA. The Wire has made no secret of its conviction that here is a young man who has been cruelly robbed of justice. Not only has the Wire carried sterling commentary by noted writers and jurists on why his prolonged incarceration represents a gross miscarriage of justice, it has argued so in its own editorials. You describe yourself as a ‘Wire reader’, so I am surprised that you make the argument you do. As for applying the term “even-handedly across the political spectrum”, that would certainly be the case if the ruling system is even-handed in its dispensation of justice.End note: Our thoughts with Tongam Rina, courageous editor of Arunachal Times, at a time when the Arunachal Police have sent out a search warrant against her for her supposed links to the protests over the proposed power project on the Siang river (‘I Am Disgusted, But Not Surprised: Arunachal Police Seek Search-Warrant Against Journalist Tongam Rina’, October 30). As the Wire story pointed out, this is not the first time that she has had to face fire. In 2012, she was attacked by men wielding guns outside her office in Itanagar, leaving her with a broken spine and ruptured intestines. Emergency surgery in Delhi helped her slowly recover from her grievous injuries.Write to ombudsperson@thewire.in