RTI Act: Right to information, wrong in practice

Bangladesh enacted the Right to Information Act in 2009, granting citizens the legal right to request information from public authorities. The law also created the Information Commission, an independent body responsible for hearing appeals when government agencies fail to respond to those requests.

Today, that enforcement mechanism is largely inactive. The posts of Chief Information Commissioner and two commissioners have remained vacant for more than 18 months, leaving the institution without leadership.

In the absence of a functioning commission, citizens who are denied information have limited avenues to challenge those decisions. A recent amendment to the law introduced several procedural changes, but the institutional gap remains.

The tenure of the last commissioners expired, and the interim government did not appoint replacements. The newly elected government has inherited the same vacancy. As of March 2026, no commissioner has yet been named.

The RTI Act itself requires the existence of a Chief Information Commissioner and two additional commissioners. Without them, the enforcement mechanism of the law collapses. Citizens who are denied information have nowhere to appeal.

At a press conference earlier this month, Transparency International Bangladesh Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman described the situation as "embarrassing".

He also said, "During the tenure of the interim government, a number of important decisions affecting key sectors of the state were taken without due regard for transparency. In that context, it is perhaps not surprising that the government allowed the Information Commission to remain unconstituted for a year and a half. However, the continued failure to form the Information Commission, despite the legal obligation to do so, is deeply embarrassing."

He added, "During the Awami League's 16 years in power, the country was governed through what many described as a system of entrenched corruption, and the Right to Information Commission was rendered ineffective, much like several other oversight bodies. At the same time, the governance process under the interim administration also suffered from a lack of transparency. Until the very last moment of its tenure, the formation of the Information Commission was deliberately delayed."

Badiul Alam Majumdar, secretary of Citizens for Good Governance (Shujan), expressed frustration, saying, "Transitioning from our country's long-standing culture of secrecy to a culture of openness is a long and difficult process. In this regard, the interim government failed to set a positive example. Despite having a legal obligation to do so, it delayed the formation of the Information Commission for an extended period, setting an unprecedented record."

Reality on the ground

On paper, Bangladesh's Right to Information framework is not weak.

The Global RTI Rating, maintained by the Centre for Law and Democracy in Canada, gives Bangladesh a score of 107–109 out of 150, placing it 27th among 141 countries as of 2024. In terms of legal design, the law even scores higher than countries such as Finland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.

But a law is only as effective as the institution that enforces it.

Moreover, data from the Right to Information portal shows how the system is currently functioning.

According to the dashboard, a total of 27,673 RTI applications have been submitted across Bangladesh. Yet only 121 applications have received responses so far.

Another 139 applications remain under process, while the overwhelming majority — 24,487 requests — have already exceeded the legal response deadline without resolution. In addition, 18 applications have been cancelled.

The numbers highlight a striking imbalance between requests filed and responses delivered. In effect, thousands of citizens have exercised their legal right to seek information, but only a tiny fraction have received replies within the system.

The portal also indicates that the platform has been viewed by 127,629 visitors, suggesting growing public interest in using the law despite the system's limited responsiveness.

What the 2026 RTI amendment introduced

The RTI Amendment Ordinance 2026, issued earlier this year by the interim government, marked the first significant revision of the law since its adoption in 2009.

The ordinance introduced several changes.

It broadened the definition of "information", strengthened provisions on proactive disclosure, and increased penalties for non-compliance. The daily fine for refusing to provide information was raised from Tk50 to Tk100, while the maximum penalty increased from Tk5,000 to Tk10,000.

Taken individually, these revisions appear reasonable. Yet they largely bypass the deeper institutional problems that have long limited the effectiveness of the law.

One of the most debated changes concerns the definition of information itself. The amendment expanded the scope to include digital materials, maps, microfilms and electronically generated records. 

At the same time, it explicitly excluded official note sheets — the internal documents where bureaucrats record discussions, recommendations and the reasoning behind administrative decisions. For transparency advocates, this exclusion removes precisely the records that allow citizens to understand how decisions are actually made inside the state.

Civil society groups had proposed much broader reforms. 

In 2025, the Tottho Odhikar Forum submitted 37 recommendations to the government. Among them were proposals to include note sheets within the scope of the law, extend coverage to political parties and private organisations receiving public funds, introduce a mandatory deadline for filling vacancies in the Information Commission, and harmonise the RTI Act with conflicting legislation such as the Official Secrets Act.

None of these recommendations was incorporated into the amendment.

Even the revised penalty provisions may have limited practical impact. A maximum fine of Tk10,000 for denying a citizen's legal right to information is unlikely to act as a strong deterrent for public officials.

How South Asia compares

Bangladesh is not the only South Asian country struggling with the enforcement of transparency laws. But its current institutional vacuum is particularly severe.

India, which ranks ninth globally in the RTI Rating, operates a multi-tiered oversight structure consisting of a Central Information Commission and information commissions in each state. While the institutional framework remains active, the system faces significant delays. 

As of mid-2024, more than 405,000 appeals and complaints were pending across 29 information commissions nationwide, reflecting mounting pressure on the transparency regime despite its continued operation.

Sri Lanka, ranked 4th globally with a score of 131/150, offers a more encouraging model. Its five-member RTI Commission, established under the Right to Information Act of 2016, has the power to conduct inquiries, summon witnesses under oath, and file cases in Magistrates' Courts against officials who provide false or incomplete information, with penalties of up to Rs50,000 or imprisonment. The commissioners are appointed on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council, insulating the process from executive discretion.

Nepal, ranked 23rd globally, was the first country in South Asia to recognise the right to information as a fundamental constitutional right. The National Information Commission continues to process appeals and oversee compliance with the law.

The tenure of the last commissioners expired and the interim government did not appoint replacements. The newly elected government has inherited the same vacancy. As of March 2026, no commissioner has yet been named. The RTI Act itself requires the existence of a Chief Information Commissioner and two additional commissioners. Without them, the enforcement mechanism of the law collapses. Citizens who are denied information have nowhere to appeal.

According to the commission's latest annual report from November 2024, the body received 5,182 appeals during the five-year tenure of its commissioners and resolved about 95% of them. The figures show that the commission remains institutionally active in handling information disputes. Yet challenges persist. Reports from civil society indicate that citizens sometimes face harassment after filing information requests, while proactive disclosure by provincial and local governments remains uneven.

Afghanistan presents another notable case. According to the global RTI Rating, its Access to Information Law ranks first in the world with a score of 139 out of 150. Adopted in 2014 and later strengthened through amendments, the law grants broad rights to request information and establishes detailed provisions on scope, appeals and disclosure obligations.

In principle, any individual can request information from public institutions under this framework.

The RTI Rating, however, evaluates the strength of legislation rather than its implementation.

A new government, an unresolved vacancy and a test for Bangladesh

Bangladesh's challenge is not writing a good transparency law. That part was largely achieved in 2009. The real challenge is ensuring that the institution responsible for enforcing the law actually functions.

As long as the Information Commission remains vacant, the Right to Information Act will continue to operate without its central pillar. Citizens may still submit requests, but when those requests are ignored or denied, there is no authority to intervene.

In that sense, Bangladesh today faces a simple but crucial question: whether transparency will remain a principle written into law or become a practice backed by functioning institutions.

Until that gap is addressed, the country's right to information risks remaining exactly what critics have long warned — a right that exists on paper but not in practice.

The vacancy at the Information Commission has now extended across two successive administrations.

The commissioners' terms expired in August 2024 during the final months of the Awami League government. The interim administration that followed the July 2024 political upheaval did not appoint replacements, leaving the statutory body inactive.

Following the parliamentary election held in February 2026, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party formed the new government after securing a large parliamentary majority. The election marked the party's return to power after nearly two decades in opposition, ending the interim administration that had overseen the transition following the protests that forced the previous government from office.

The new government has inherited a number of institutional gaps created during the period of political turbulence, including vacancies in several statutory bodies. The Information Commission is among the most significant because its operation is directly linked to the enforcement of the Right to Information Act.

Under the RTI Act, the commission is responsible for hearing appeals when citizens do not receive responses to information requests within the legally mandated timeframe. With the commission inactive, those appeals cannot be processed, effectively removing the final enforcement layer of the law.

The continuation of the vacancy in the commissioners' posts means that the Right to Information framework is currently operating without the institution designed to adjudicate disputes and enforce compliance.

In practical terms, the responsibility for restoring the commission now rests with the current administration, which holds the authority to appoint new commissioners.