The Power of “Why” in Democratic Accountability
The question “Why?” is deceptively simple, yet it is one of the most powerful tools for democratic accountability. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), this question challenges the boundaries of what counts as “information” and pushes the state toward a deeper culture of justification.
To treat the answer to “why” as mere data is to miss its essence. “Why” seeks causation, motivation, and justification, elements that go beyond factual recall and enter the realm of institutional reasoning. This essay explores how the RTI Act, while formally limited to existing records, implicitly mandates the documentation and disclosure of the state’s rationale.
The Legal Limits and the Quiet Mandate
The refusal to answer “Why?” under the RTI Act is not based on a single prohibition clause. Instead, it stems from the narrow definition of “information” in Section 2(f), which limits disclosure to existing records, documents, memos, and data. Courts and information commissions have interpreted this to mean that Public Information Officers (PIOs) are not required to create new information, offer opinions, provide justifications, or interpret records on behalf of applicants.
However, the Act quietly requires public authorities to explain their decisions:
- Section 4(1)(d) mandates that authorities proactively provide reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
- Proviso to Section 8(1)(i) requires that, once a Cabinet decision is complete, both the decision and the reasons behind it must be disclosed to the public.
The Legal Imperative: From Facts to Reasoned Rationale
In law, the “why” is not optional, it is central to transparency and accountability. The RTI Act recognizes this, even if indirectly.
1. The Legal “Why” — Justification as the Actus Reus of Decision-Making
When a public authority exercises discretion, denying a permit, awarding a tender, or issuing a regulation, the final decision (the “what”) must be accompanied by a documented rationale (the “why”).
RTI Example — Permit Denial or Tender Rejection
- The “What” (Information): The applicant receives records of submitted documents and evaluation criteria.
- The RTI-Constrained “Why”: The applicant seeks the reason for rejection. The PIO cannot create new explanations or offer personal views.
But the Act’s strength lies here:
- File Notings: These internal records trace the reasoning, analysis, and recommendations behind decisions.
- Meeting Minutes & Administrative Resolutions: If available, these contain formal justifications and principles applied.
The PIO’s duty is to provide these existing records, not to invent explanations. Yet these records often contain the very rationale citizens seek.
2. Judicial Interpretation — Drawing the Line Between Access and Opinion
Indian courts have clarified the limits of the RTI Act:
- Prohibited “Why”: PIOs cannot be compelled to answer hypotheticals, offer opinions, or construct justifications retrospectively.
- Essential “Why”: If a record exists that explains why a decision was made, it is disclosable, even if it contains causal reasoning or motivation.
How the RTI Act Makes Authorities Explain Decisions
The RTI Act doesn’t ask government officers to give personal opinions or create new explanations. But it does something more important:
It ensures that officers write down the reasons for their decisions as they happen.
- Notes on files, meeting reports, and official decisions become part of the government’s memory.
- These documents are not just facts, they show how and why decisions were made.
So even though the law talks about giving “information,” it often includes the reasons behind actions too.
In practice, the RTI Act helps citizens check whether government decisions were fair, clear, and properly recorded.
Conclusion — From Data to Democratic Dialogue
The RTI Act may not allow citizens to demand fresh explanations, but it does something more enduring, it mandates that the state write down its “why” so that citizens can read it.
This transforms the RTI Act from a tool of data access into a mechanism of democratic oversight. It affirms that good governance is not just about decisions, it’s about the reasons behind them.
In essence, the RTI Act doesn’t just give access to information. It gives access to institutional conscience.
