Transparency
RAS Mains, Paper II, Unit I, point 3: "liberal society: transparency, media and bureaucracy" (this page covers transparency)
- Updated for the Jan 2026 syllabus
- Read time: about 11 minutes
Exam weight (our count from the real 2018-2024 papers)
0 questions with "transparency" in the title. This is a new line in the syllabus, so our guess is that it may appear (not RPSC information). The RTI Act is also in the Paper III law section (Sections 1-20), so this page serves both papers.
30-second summary
Remember
- Transparency means a government's decisions and workings are open to scrutiny by the public and the media.
- Three tools: information on request (RTI), information without request (proactive disclosure), and public hearings or social audit.
- Rajasthan has a special place: the MKSS people's movement, the State's own RTI law of 2000 and the Jan Soochna Portal of 2019.
- Limits: national security, privacy and candid advice, but each needs "clear and lawful reasons".
- Transparency is a precondition for accountability, not a guarantee of it.
Part A box (each line 15 words or fewer)
Remember
- Question: What is transparency in governance?
- Answer: Transparency means decisions and workings stay open to public and media scrutiny. (12 words)
- Ready line 2: Proactive disclosure means giving the public official information without waiting for a request. (13 words)
- Ready line 3: Transparency is a precondition of accountability, but not a guarantee of it. (12 words)
1. Meaning
The 2nd ARC (Fourth Report, January 2007, para 6.5.1) says that in public administration transparency implies openness and accountability. An organisation is transparent when its decision making and manner of working are open to public and media scrutiny and public discussion. This invites public participation and strengthens grass-roots democracy.
2. Its place in a liberal society
In a liberal democracy, power is held in trust for citizens and individual rights come first. So the State must be open, and an individual's privacy must be protected. Balancing the two is the heart of this topic (our interpretation).
3. Four gains
Less corruption: discretion exercised in the open is harder to abuse. The 2nd ARC (para 6.7.1) cited the transfer of teachers in Karnataka: applicants gave reasons, a computer-generated priority list went up on the notice board, and objections were invited; the report says corruption fell considerably.
Accountability: what is visible can be questioned.
Trust: citizens who know the reasons accept decisions more readily.
Participation: with information, citizens can advise and complain.
4. Principle and thinker
Nolan "Openness": office-holders should act and decide in an open and transparent manner; information should not be withheld unless there are clear and lawful reasons (current gov.uk wording).
Louis Brandeis (December 1913): "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." (Harper's Weekly, "What Publicity Can Do"; source: Wikipedia.)
5. India's legal frame
(with Rajasthan)
Right to Information Act, 2005: assent 15 June 2005; fully in force 12 October 2005. A public authority must normally reply within 30 days (48 hours where life and liberty are involved, Section 7(1)). Section 4: keep records in order and computerised, and publish certain categories of information on its own. Section 8(1): exemptions, such as sovereignty and security (clause a), commercial confidence (d), impeding an investigation (h), Cabinet papers (i) and personal information (j). Section 8(2): even where an exemption applies, the authority may disclose if the public interest outweighs the harm. Section 24: intelligence and security organisations are exempt, except for allegations of corruption or human rights violations. (Source: the Act text, Indian Kanoon; the Paper III syllabus covers Sections 1-20.)
The 2025 change to add in your answer: Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 rewrote RTI Section 8(1)(j). The old text exempted personal information only where it had no relationship to any public activity or interest, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless the larger public interest justified disclosure. The new text simply says "information which relates to personal information"; the public-interest condition is gone. The change has been in force since November 2025 (notification of 13 November 2025). It is under challenge in the Supreme Court; a report of the 7 August 2026 hearing says the Court asked the Centre to respond and did not stay the provision. The public-interest test of Section 8(2) remains in the Act, but how far it now reaches personal information is yet to be tested in court (our reading). Give both the present provision and the live debate, Law status changes: check the latest official text.
Rajasthan Right to Information Act, 2000 (Act No. 13 of 2000): Governor's assent 11 May 2000; in force from 26 January 2001 (per the Act text on the CHRI site). The Central Act followed in 2005.
Rajasthan Guaranteed Delivery of Public Services Act, 2011 (2011; in force 14 November 2011, secondary source): notified services must be delivered within time limits; non-delivery brings appeals and penalties on the designated officer (Rs 500 to Rs 5,000, or Rs 250 a day for delay up to Rs 5,000). Source: a summary of the Act (secondary; the penalty amounts agree across sources).
Supreme Court: Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms (2 May 2002): candidates must file affidavits on criminal, financial and educational background so voters can know. On 15 February 2024 the Court (ADR v Union of India) struck down the electoral bonds scheme as violating the voter's right to information under Article 19(1)(a). Source: Wikipedia (ADR page).
6. Limits of transparency
National security and intelligence information (Section 24 basis above).
Privacy: Puttaswamy (24 August 2017) made privacy part of Article 21, and RTI Section 8(1)(j) also shields personal information (in its changed 2025 form, above), so personal data must be handled with care.
Candid advice and live investigations must not be harmed.
Information overload can confuse; information should be simple and usable.
Nolan's test: any withholding needs "clear and lawful reasons".
Worked examples (documented, with year)
MKSS, Rajasthan (from 1990)
the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan was set up on 1 May 1990; its leaders include Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey and Shankar Singh. In "jan sunwai" public hearings it read out official expenditure records before villagers and compared them with their testimony. On 6 April 1996 a 40-day protest began in Beawar.
Source: Wikipedia (MKSS page).
Jan Soochna Portal, Government of Rajasthan (13 September 2019)
launched in the presence of Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot; it carries proactive disclosure on 21 schemes. The launch event is described on the UN India site, where it was called the first initiative anywhere in India for proactive disclosure under RTI at the Panchayat level (a speaker's claim; the "first" is not independently confirmed, so attribute it to the speaker).
Service guarantee law (2011)
time limits and penalties make service delivery open and answerable.
Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
transparency in its electoral form, the voter's right to know.
How to use in an answer
definition (ARC 6.5.1), then the legal tools (RTI, proactive disclosure), then the Rajasthan example (MKSS, 2000/2001, 2019), then limits (security, privacy), then a balanced close.
Thinkers and quotes box
| Name | Idea | Usable line |
|---|---|---|
| Louis Brandeis (Dec 1913) | Publicity cleanses | "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." (Harper's Weekly, "What Publicity Can Do") |
| Nolan Committee | Openness | "Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing." (current gov.uk wording) |
| 2nd ARC (2007) | Transparency = openness + accountability | The definition at para 6.5.1 (above) |
Diagram: three circles and a gate
Information on request (RTI)
Three circles: · ·
Information without request (Section 4, Jan Soochna Portal)
Public hearings and social audit (MKSS)
Accountability
Where they meet
Limits gate: security, privacy, candid advice (reasons in writing, lawful)
Gate on the right
No question titled "transparency" was found in the 2018, 2021, 2023 or 2024 Paper II. This count covers all 52 Unit I questions of 2018, 2021, 2023 and 2024; it is not RPSC information.
Nearest: the 2018 and 2024 Part B questions (political neutrality and bias; pages 3.3 and 3.4) touch the same unit line from the bureaucracy-politics side.
Preparation advice: because the line is new, a Part B (5 marks) question on "transparency and accountability" or a Part A (2 marks) on "proactive disclosure" is plausible. This is our guess.
Common mistakes
Remember
- Limiting transparency to RTI; leaving out proactive disclosure and social audit.
- Giving no limits, or invoking "security" with no reason.
- Muddling Rajasthan dates (MKSS 1990, State law 2000, in force 2001, Central Act 2005, Portal 2019).
Self-check (5 questions)
Remember
- What does the 2nd ARC say transparency means?
- When did RTI 2005 come into force, and what is the usual reply period?
- What was the MKSS "jan sunwai"?
- When was the Jan Soochna Portal launched?
- Name two limits of transparency.
Mini case study
Illustrative exampleHypothetical case (काल्पनिक केस)
Vinay, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, receives an RTI application asking for the list of old-age pension beneficiaries, with names, addresses, amounts paid and inspection reports. The office clerk says, "Refuse on grounds of privacy and save the trouble." One name, a relative of the local MLA, looks suspicious.
- Stakeholders
- Vinay, the applicant, pension beneficiaries, the person with the suspicious name and the MLA, office staff, the department, the Information Commission.
- Issue and clashing values
- transparency and accountability against privacy, and the fear of political discomfort.
- Three options
- (a) Refuse everything citing privacy, even the scheme-level figures. Pro: less trouble. Con: withholds information that should not be withheld (Section 4 material, scheme-level figures), exposes him to appeal and bad name, and may hide a wrong. (b) Hand over everything unsorted, identity numbers included. Pro: total openness. Con: risks the privacy and safety of beneficiaries. (c) Reply as the law requires: give the public-interest facts (names, scheme, amounts paid) after removing sensitive personal identifiers, state in writing the reason for any part withheld, and get the suspicious entry checked independently. Pro: balances both values. Con: extra effort and possible political pressure.
- Best option and supporting value
- option (c). Values: transparency, accountability and respect for privacy, with Nolan's test of "clear and lawful reasons". Legal note: after 2025 Section 8(1)(j) has no public-interest condition, so releasing names and addresses is a judgment call for the officer; release what the scheme rules already require to be published (Section 4), withhold other identifying details and give the reason in writing. The department should check the suspicious entry on its own, whether or not the information is released.
Lesson
Action: Short term: reply within the time limit, give the reason for the withheld part, have the suspicious entry verified. Long term: proactive disclosure of beneficiary lists (Section 4) on a portal like Jan Soochna, with identifiers masked, plus village-level social audit.
Practice Questions
Practice questionabout 50 words
How does transparency strengthen accountability? State two limits.
Model answer
Under transparency, decisions are open to public and media scrutiny, so officers can be asked to answer for them; the RTI Act, 2005 is the tool. Two limits: national security and intelligence information, and privacy, which Puttaswamy (2017) placed within Article 21. Any withholding needs clear and lawful reasons.
Practice questionabout 100 words
"Transparency is the best disinfectant, but not a cure-all." Discuss in the light of RTI and Rajasthan's experience.
Model answer
Brandeis called sunlight the best of disinfectants. In Rajasthan the MKSS public hearings (from 1990) put expenditure records before villagers, and against that background the State's 2000 RTI law and the Central Act of 2005 followed. The 2019 Jan Soochna Portal pushed proactive disclosure further. Yet information alone is not enough: appeals, follow-up action and aware citizens are needed. The Karnataka transfer list in the 2nd ARC report shows how published criteria cut discretion. Security and privacy set legitimate limits too. Transparency must therefore be joined with answerability mechanisms, simple information and protection of privacy.
How to Write This Answer
Introduction
ARC definition
Body
- tools, Rajasthan, limits
Conclusion
transparency plus accountability machinery
Value addition
- Brandeis, Nolan, ADR 2002
One-page Revision
- Transparency = openness + accountability (ARC 6.5.1)
- three tools (on request, without request, social audit)
- Nolan Openness
- Brandeis Dec 1913
- MKSS 1.5.1990, Beawar protest 6.4.1996 (40 days)
- Rajasthan RTI 2000 (assent 11.5.2000, in force 26.1.2001)
- RTI 2005 (assent 15.6.2005, fully in force 12.10.2005; 30 days, 48 hours)
- Sections 4, 24
- Jan Soochna Portal 13.9.2019
- Service guarantee Act 2011 (in force 14.11.2011)
- ADR 2.5.2002
- Electoral bonds 15.2.2024
- Puttaswamy 24.8.2017
- Karnataka teacher transfers (ARC 6.7.1)
- Case: SDM Vinay, redacted disclosure plus written reasons.