Prominent civil rights activists on Wednesday (June 24, 2026) sent a legal notice to Maharashtra government seeking a complete rollback of the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2026, asking how these rules could be amended without prior disclosure or public consultation. They have sought the restoration of the legal position before the rules were issued, asking for a transparent and meaningful public consultation process involving RTI users, former Information Commissioners, journalists, transparency activists, civil society organisations and legal experts before framing any fresh rules.

The legal notice has been issued by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, advocate Prahlad Kachare, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, journalist Vinita Deshmukh, civil rights activists Vivek Velankar, Jugal Rathi and Mohammed Afzal.

It claims that the provisions of the amended rules are not isolated defects. “They collectively reveal a pattern of restrictions that make access to information more expensive, more technical, more burdensome and more difficult than contemplated by Parliament. The cumulative effect of mandatory identity requirements, restrictions on applications, enhanced fees, shifting burden of proof, expanded exemptions and procedural hurdles is to move the RTI regime away from the citizen-centric framework envisaged by Parliament and towards a system that discourages rather than facilitates access to information,” the legal notice accessed by The Hindu stated.

It said that the new rules dilute, restrict, and burden the exercise of rights conferred by the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), moving away from its citizen-centric framework.

The legal notice has challenged the provisions of the amended rules. They include the tripling of the application fees, introduction of new fees for appeals, and capping of free information for those living Below Poverty Line. It has mandated that one RTI query should pertain to a single subject and should limit its word count to 150 words. It seeks mandatory revelation of identity of the applicant, removing the shield of anonymity for whistleblowers, and bans having lawyers to represent the applicant during hearing. If the applicant fails to show up for the hearing, the case can be dismissed. If the applicant dies, the case will be closed.

The activists have objected to these amendments on several grounds. They include the contention that the delegated legislation exceeded authority, that there was a lack of transparency in the rule-making process, imposition of financial burden, restriction on fee exemption for Below Poverty Line persons.

Raising point-wise objections, the legal notice stated that the power given to the Commission to dismiss appeals or complaints if the complainant failed to appear during hearing, was “inconsistent with the beneficial and citizen-centric character of the RTI Act.”

“Many citizens may be unable to attend hearings for bona fide reasons. Proceedings before the Commission are intended to determine whether access to information has been lawfully denied and not to penalise citizens for procedural lapses. Appeals and complaints under the RTI Act ought ordinarily to be decided on merits. The power to dismiss proceedings for non-prosecution risks denial of substantive rights on technical grounds without adjudication of the applicant’s entitlement to information,” the notice stated.

Raising concerns about the abatement of a case on the death of an appellant, the activists have said it is equally problematic. “The mere death of an applicant does not necessarily render the issues arising in the appeal academic or infructuous. Automatic abatement, irrespective of the nature of the information sought, may result in denial of substantive rights on procedural grounds,” it said.

RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar said, “The RTI movement in India has witnessed several instances where information seekers and transparency activists have allegedly faced threats, intimidation, harassment and, in some cases, loss of life. In such circumstances, a provision providing for automatic abatement upon the death of an appellant may have the unintended consequence of permanently extinguishing proceedings relating to potentially sensitive information.”