In India, the first political commitment to citizens' right to information was made on the eve of the Lok Sabha elections in 1977, as a result of popular outrage over information control, press censorship, and misuse of authority during the internal emergency of 1975-77. In its 1977 election manifesto, the Janata Party promised "open governance" and pledged not to "misuse intelligence services and administrative authorities for personal and party goals." In response to this commitment, the Janata government, led by Moraji Desai, formed a Working Group in 19767 to investigate whether the Official Secrets Act, 1923, might be amended to allow for better flow of information to the public.

The working group, which included officials from the Cabinet Secretariat and the Ministries of Home Affairs, Finance, and Defense, laboured for months only to urge that the Act of 1923 be kept as is. This 'no change' advice was contrary to popular belief. The group's composition, on the other hand, was indicative of the type of suggestion it made. Because the bureaucracy thrives on secrecy, any other type of recommendation would have been an outlier. The country was eventually returned to 1923, or'square one,' as it was content to govern its communication system with "we, the People of India," via the colonial Official Secrets Act network (Maheshwari 1980).

The events that aided in the creation of political commitment to the Right to Information for the second time bore parallels to the historical setting in which Sweden's principle of public access to information arose. The National Front government's increased commitment to this Right was the result of people's displeasure with the previous government's refusal to share information about Bofors and other deals (Guha Roy). The National Front promised to "open government" in their Lok Sabha Election Manisfesto of 1989, declaring categorically that "people's right to information should be secured by constitutional provisions." In his first broadcast to the nation in December 1989, then-Prime Minister V.P Singh reiterated this vow, saying, "We shall have to increase access to knowledge." When the government operates in broad public view, wrongdoing is reduced. To that purpose, the Official Secrets Act will be changed, and the operation will be made more visible. Our Constitution will include the right to information."

Despite such a strong commitment, there was no progress toward transparency and openness in our governmental functioning as a result of the National Front government's early demise. Aruna Roy's Right to Information initiative in Rajasthan has been highly effective. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan is a people's organisation that is working hard to get the government to respond to the requests for information and accountability. People have been able to speak up and voice their problems to government functionaries through 'Jan Sunwai,' or public hearings. In fact, such popular initiatives can effectively give substance to the abstract concept of the Right to Information and Transparency (Roy, 2001).

The right to information campaign, which began in the state of Rajasthan in 1994, gave people the option to demand information on development spending, ensure accountability, and address concerns. In 1994, the inaugural Jan Sunwai (Public Hearing) was held in the village of Kotkirana. It gained traction with the organisation of dharnas in the state of Rajasthan, which forced the government to accept that the people had the right to get information regarding expenditure on village development projects. Later, a Committee was formed at the Centre, chaired by Justice P.B Sawant, to produce a model bill to be tabled in the Parliament and the States.

In 1997, the Government of India had set up a Working Group on Right to Information and Promotion of Open and Transparent Government. It was entrusted with the responsibility of examining the feasibility of introducing a Right to Information Act. The Working Group accepted the following broad principles for the formulation of legislation:

• Disclosure of information should be the rule and secrecy the exception.
• Exception should be clearly defined.
• There should be an independent mechanism for adjudication of disputes between the citizens and public authority (Mathur, 2003).

Later, in its Action Plan for Effective and Responsive Government at the Central and State Levels, the Conference of Chief Ministers reiterated the introduction of legislation on Right to Information, citing opacity and lack of openness in many governmental decision-making operations.

Following that, the National Agenda governance of the previous multi-party coalition, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), stated: "Our first responsibility to the people is to provide a stable, honest, transparent, and efficient government capable of achieving all-round growth." The government will implement a time-bound agenda of necessary administrative reforms..." In accordance with this objective, the NDA government introduced in Parliament the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill, 2000. The Bill was formerly under consideration by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs.

Meanwhile, rather than waiting for federal legislation, a half-dozen states have implemented their own Right to Information laws (RTI). Goa (1997), Tamil Nadu (1997), Rajasthan (2000), Maharashtra (2000), Karnataka (2000), and Delhi (2000) are among them (2001). Furthermore, Madhya Pradesh has issued broad administrative directions on information distribution up to the level of Gram Panchayats. The Rajasthan RTI Act of 2000 explicitly defines the mechanism for providing information, the reasons on which some information may be withheld, the procedure for filing an appeal in the event of non-receipt of information, and so on. The Delhi Right to Information Act of 2001 also specifies the duty of public agencies to provide information, the mechanism for providing information, the restrictions on sharing information, and so on.

Surprisingly, all of the states that have established their own RTI legislation were run by non-NDA partners at the time the Act was passed. However, the law in several of these states has been excessively lax. The Tamil Nadu Act, for example, imposes over twenty restrictions on the exercise of the Right. The Goa and Karnataka Acts, on the other hand, have a number of positive aspects. However, in all of these states, concerned people and civil society organisations continue to complain about the suppression of information on critical issues of public interest.

The NDA Government’s proposed FOI Bill has evoked a lot of controversy on various issues. Some of them are notably as follows:

• The bill exempts from disclosure “information exchanged in confidence between the central and state governments or any of their authorities or agencies”. It is commonly felt that this is too wide a clause to cover a lot such information, which should otherwise be available to the people.
• A major lacuna of the bill is that it does not specifically provide for penalties against the officials who in violation of the law, would either refuse to provide information or give false, misleading or incomplete information.
• In this age of economic liberation, when the government are keen on outsourcing many of their traditional functional to private agencies and allowing foreign direct investment  in telecom, power banking  and other major sectors, the bill, however, does not apply to the private sector. In contrast, the South African law enacted in the dame year has specifically brought the private sector and the private sector engaged in similar commercial activity.
• The most serious shortcoming of the bill lies in that in provides for appeals only within the government bodies. It not only bars jurisdiction of courts but also ensures that no appeal should lie even with an independent body.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court has already decided that the right to knowledge is a fundamental right and that denial of information violates the right to life. In response to this declaration, as well as petitions filed by the Common Cause and the Center for Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court reportedly decided to examine the proposed FOI Bill to determine whether the government has given citizens enough power to know what they want to know about governance. As a result, the hearing has been postponed until January 2003. This is a pleasant respite from the lack of governmental will to recognise people's right to know.

Meanwhile, the Lok Sabha passed the Freedom of Information Act fairly hastily on December 4, 2002.

On December 23, 2004, the current government introduced the Right to Information Bill in Parliament. The current government's National Advisory Council recommended 36 revisions to the Freedom of Information Act 2002, including renaming it the Right to Information Act to underscore the fundamental character of the right. The scope of this Bill is limited to the federal government and excludes state governments, district authorities, and municipal bodies.

The Parliament has passed the |Right to information Bill on 11th May 2005 with 146 amendments, and it has come into effect form 12th October 2005.