Strengthening Transparency or Redrawing the Lines? A Legal Perspective on the Right to Information (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026

Amendments made to transparency legislation are rarely a technical exercise. They reflect the State’s approach to accountability, administrative openness, and citizen participation. The recent amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2009 through the Right to Information (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 is one such moment that merits careful and objective analysis.

The Ordinance has been promulgated under Article 93(1) of the Constitution during the dissolution of Parliament. Constitutionally, that mechanism exists to address situations requiring immediate legislative action. However, when a law that directly safeguards the public’s right to know is amended through executive ordinance rather than parliamentary debate, it inevitably invites closer scrutiny. Transparency legislation occupies a special place in democratic governance, and any alteration to its structure carries both legal and symbolic significance.

One of the most notable changes lies in the substitution of the definition of “information” under Section 2(f). The amended definition is broad and technologically current. It expressly includes memoranda, agreements, data, logbooks, reports, account statements, project proposals, photographs, audio and video materials, diagrams, films, and materials generated through electronic processes or computer systems. From a practitioner’s standpoint, this clarification is welcome. In many disputes, authorities have historically resisted disclosure by arguing that certain digital or machine-generated materials fall outside the statutory scope. The revised definition reduces that ambiguity and properly aligns the statute with modern record-keeping practices.

Yet the definition now contains an explicit exclusion: official note sheets or copies of note sheets are not to be treated as “information.” This exclusion is legally significant. In administrative practice, note sheets often record internal deliberations, recommendations, and reasoning that precede final decisions. While the public may still access the outcome of a decision, access to the internal thought process leading to that decision may now be restricted. From a governance perspective, this marks a subtle recalibration. It does not eliminate transparency, but it narrows the window into internal administrative deliberation. Whether this exclusion will be interpreted narrowly or broadly will likely become a matter for the Information Commission and, ultimately, judicial scrutiny.

The amendments to section 6, dealing with proactive disclosure, are comparatively progressive. Authorities are now under a clearer and more direct obligation to publish information relating to their decisions, activities, audit reports, contracts, and expenditure. Importantly, the language emphasizes that such information must be made easily accessible to citizens. In practice, mere technical publication is not enough. Information must be meaningfully accessible. This wording provides interpretive space for insisting on practical, user-friendly disclosure rather than symbolic compliance.

Further, when an authority formulates an important policy or takes a significant decision, it must publish that policy and, where necessary, explain the reasoning, the decision-making process, and the examination of public opinion that informed it. This requirement strengthens administrative accountability. It recognizes that transparency is not limited to outcomes but extends, at least to some degree, to the rationale behind those outcomes. If implemented faithfully, this provision could significantly improve public trust in administrative processes.

The Amendment also mandates the establishment of an information repository by the Information Commission through regulations. This development has structural importance. A centralized repository, if properly maintained, could standardize access, improve consistency in compliance, and reduce fragmentation across authorities. However, as with many statutory reforms, the success of this initiative will depend on institutional capacity and commitment.

Section 27 has been amended to increase monetary penalties for non-compliance. The daily fine has been doubled, and the maximum cap has also been increased. In absolute terms, the sums remain modest. In my experience, the effectiveness of penalties lies less in their size and more in their certainty. If enforcement is consistent and impartial, even moderate penalties can reshape administrative behavior. If enforcement remains rare or selective, numerical increases alone will not materially alter compliance culture.

From a constitutional standpoint, the broader architecture of the Act remains intact. The citizen’s right to information continues to be recognized, subject to exemptions under section 7. The Amendment does not expand the list of exempt categories. However, by excluding official note sheets from the definition of “information,” it introduces a structural limitation that may shape future access disputes. Courts, when called upon, will likely consider whether the exclusion is being used proportionately or as a shield for withholding otherwise disclosable material.

In practical terms, citizens gain clarity regarding digital and electronic records and benefit from strengthened proactive disclosure requirements. Authorities, on the other hand, must now invest more effort in systematic publication of decisions and financial information. Administrative processes may need to adapt to ensure that policy reasoning can be disclosed without compromising lawful confidentiality. The Information Commission, for its part, will play a pivotal role in defining the boundaries of these amendments through its interpretive and enforcement functions.

In overall assessment, the 2026 Amendment does not dismantle the transparency regime established in 2009. It modernizes certain aspects, reinforces proactive disclosure, and modestly strengthens enforcement. At the same time, it draws a firmer line around internal administrative deliberation by excluding official note sheets from the statutory definition of information. Whether that line will be narrowly confined or expansively interpreted will determine the long-term impact of this reform.

Transparency legislation evolves with governance culture. The true measure of this Ordinance will not be found solely in its text, but in its application. If implemented in good faith, it can deepen public access and strengthen institutional accountability. If applied defensively, it may narrow the practical reach of the right to know. As with many legal reforms, its legacy will ultimately be written not only by lawmakers, but by administrators, regulators, and the courts.

References:

1. Right to Information Act, 2009, Information Commission of Bangladesh—
   https://infocom.gov.bd/site/view/law/-RTI-Act
2. Unofficial English Version of Bangladesh RTI Act, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative –
   https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/international/laws_papers/bangladesh/unofficial_english_version_of_bangladesh_rti_act.pdf (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative)
3. RTI Ordinance update, BSS News –
   https://www.bssnews.net/news/359819
4. RTI Ordinance passed without key reforms, alleges rights forum, The Business Standard —
   https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/rti-ordinance-passed-without-key-reforms-alleges-rights-forum-1357861

Share this Article

Find Here More Articles