Administrative Accountability in the Era of Data Governance: Rethinking Transparency under the RTI Act

ABSTRACT

India’s shift toward digital governance and algorithm-driven administration has created new transparency challenges under the Right to Information Act, 2005. As automated systems increasingly shape administrative decisions, maintaining accountability becomes essential for preserving public trust and preventing arbitrary bureaucratic power. Yet tensions persist between protecting personal data under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, ensuring national security, and upholding citizens’ right to understand how decisions are made.

This article argues for rethinking “transparency” in the digital age to include algorithmic accountability—explaining how automated systems work, what data they use, and how they reach conclusions. Building on Supreme Court principles recognizing information access as fundamental to democracy,4 the paper proposes practical reforms: mandatory algorithm impact assessments, proactive dataset publication, and dedicated oversight mechanisms. These changes can restore citizen confidence by ensuring technology strengthens rather than undermines democratic accountability in India’s evolving governance landscape.

INTRODUCTION

Public administration in India has undergone significant transformation with the integration of data-driven technologies into governance systems. From Aadhaar-based service delivery toalgorithmic welfare distribution, government agencies increasingly rely on big data analytics and automated decision-making to enhance efficiency.5 While these innovations promise streamlined administration, they introduce complexities regarding how citizens understand and challenge governmental decisions. The Right to Information Act, 2005, was enacted to promote transparency and hold bureaucracies accountable, establishing information access as essential to democratic governance. However, the digital turn raises questions about whether traditional transparency mechanisms remain adequate when decisions are made by opaque algorithms. A critical tension has emerged between citizens’ constitutional right to information and data protection imperatives under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.7 Without mechanisms to audit or explain algorithmic outcomes, administrative discretion risks being replaced by technological opacity. This threatens the principle articulated in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India that open governance sustains democratic legitimacy.8 This article argues that transparency under the RTI Act must be reconceptualized to encompass algorithmic accountability, requiring disclosure of decision-making processes while balancing privacy protections with public oversight.

The Changing Nature of Administrative Accountability

From Bureaucratic to Data-Driven Governance
Administrative decision-making in India has undergone a fundamental transformation over the past two decades. Traditional governance relied on manual processes where bureaucrats exercised discretion within established legal frameworks, creating paper trails that citizens could access and scrutinize.9 Today, government agencies increasingly deploy algorithmic systems and big data analytics to allocate welfare benefits, assess eligibility, detect fraud, and monitor compliance.10 The Aadhaar system exemplifies this shift, linking biometric identification to service delivery across multiple domains.11 While proponents argue that data-driven governance enhances efficiency, this transition fundamentally alters administrative power. Decisions once made by identifiable officials are now generated by complex computational systems whose internal logic remains hidden from public view.
Erosion of Traditional Accountability Mechanisms
The Right to Information Act, 2005, was designed when administrative decisions could be traced through file notings and documented deliberations.12 Citizens could request information, identify responsible officers, and challenge decisions through established mechanisms. However, algorithmic governance disrupts these accountability pathways. When automated systems make decisions, identifying who bears responsibility becomes difficult.13 Exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act, particularly concerning intellectual property, allow agencies to withhold details
about proprietary algorithms.14 Traditional audits lack the technical capacity to evaluate algorithmic fairness or bias. The Supreme Court’s recognition in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India that technological systems must adhere to proportionality and privacy safeguards underscores the inadequacy of existing accountability frameworks.15

Rise of Algorithmic Decision-Making
Algorithms now permeate administrative functions affecting citizens’ fundamental rights. The Public Distribution System uses automated verification to determine food subsidy eligibility, sometimes denying benefits due to biometric authentication failures.16 Algorithmic systems flag potential tax evasion and screen permit applications with minimal human intervention. While automation promises consistency, it introduces significant risks. Algorithms can perpetuate historical biases, disadvantaging marginalised communities.17 When automated decisions cause harm, citizens often lack mechanisms to understand why decisions were made or seek redress.
Need for Algorithmic Accountability
Addressing these challenges requires reconceptualizing transparency to encompass algorithmic accountability. Administrative agencies must disclose the existence and purpose of algorithmic
systems, data processed, and decision-making criteria.18 Algorithm impact assessments should be mandatory, evaluating potential harms and ensuring human oversight. Citizens need meaningful rights to explanation. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, provides a starting point, but enforcement mechanisms remain underdeveloped.20 Administrative accountability demands institutional capacity building: regulatory bodies need technical expertise to audit algorithms, courts require frameworks to adjudicate algorithmic harms, and citizens need accessible channels to contest automated decisions.21

The Conflict Between Transparency and Privacy

The Emerging Legal Tension
The Right to Information Act, 2005, was enacted to empower citizens with access to government information, ensuring that administrative actions remain subject to public scrutiny and accountability.22 By mandating disclosure of records and decisions, the RTI Act serves as a vital tool for combating corruption and arbitrary governance. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, introduces competing imperative: safeguarding personal data and the privacy rights of individuals whose information is held by the state. While both laws serve legitimate public interests, they frequently conflict in practice. Public authorities increasingly invoke data protection provisions to deny RTI requests, arguing that disclosure would compromise personal information. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act already exempts personal information unless it serves a larger public interest, but the DPDP Act’s stringent requirements have intensified this tension. This creates a paradox where citizens seeking accountability may find their requests blocked on privacy grounds, even when information relates to public duties—judicial Balancing of Competing Rights. The judiciary has attempted to navigate this balance. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, while acknowledging it must be balanced against other constitutional values, including transparency.
Subsequently, in Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Court emphasized that personal information of public officials related to their public duties should be disclosed under the RTI Act. However, these judgments primarily addressed conventional administrative contexts. The judiciary has not yet established a comprehensive framework for managing this tension in data-driven governance, where algorithmic systems process vast amounts of personal data.
Practical Challenges in the Digital Era
The proliferation of government databases—including Aadhaar, welfare beneficiary lists, and health records—has magnified these challenges.27 Determining what constitutes “public interest” versus “personal information” becomes complex when datasets contain both aggregated statistics and individually identifiable records. Algorithmic governance further blurs this boundary. Public authorities lack clear guidelines on anonymising data or distinguishing between legitimate privacy concerns and attempts to shield administrative failures. There is urgent need for clearly defined data-sharing protocols, robust anonymization standards, and independent oversight mechanisms that can assess disclosure requests contextually, ensuring neither transparency nor privacy is sacrificed unnecessarily.

Rethinking Transparency under the RTI Act

Evolution of Transparency in Administrative Law
The Right to Information Act, 2005, institutionalized transparency as a fundamental pillar of democratic accountability.29 The Act aimed to combat corruption, enable citizen participation, and reinforce democratic control over bureaucratic power. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared that democracy requires an informed citizenry and that secrecy is antithetical to accountable governance. Similarly, in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, the Court recognized that the right to information flows from freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).31 These judgments established the “right to know” as essential for meaningful democratic participation. For nearly two decades, the RTI Act effectively exposed corruption and held officials accountable.
Opacity in Algorithmic Decision-Making. However, algorithmic governance poses unprecedented challenges to this transparency framework. Government agencies now deploy automated systems for welfare allocation, tax assessment, fraud detection, and surveillance.32 These systems make consequential decisions affecting citizens’ rights, yet their internal logic remains opaque. When citizens file RTI applications seeking explanations of automated decisions—why a subsidy was denied or how eligibility was determined—they often receive inadequate responses. The phenomenon of “black-box” governance emerges, where decision-making processes are obscured by complex code, proprietary algorithms, and vast datasets that are neither easily disclosable nor
comprehensible. Unlike traditional administrative decisions documented through file notings, algorithmic outputs lack transparent audit trails.
Limits of the Current Legal Framework
The RTI Act was drafted in 2005, predating widespread adoption of data-driven governance and artificial intelligence in administration. It contains no specific provisions addressing algorithmic transparency, data audits, or disclosure of machine learning models. Section 8 exemptions— particularly concerning third-party information, commercial confidence, and national security—
are frequently invoked to deny access to algorithmic systems.34 In Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, the Court upheld broad interpretations of fiduciary relationships, which authorities now extend to justify withholding algorithmic information.35 This legal gap leaves citizens without effective means to challenge automated decisions.
Towards Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability
Addressing these limitations requires evolving RTI principles to encompass algorithmic accountability. Administrative agencies should disclose the existence, purpose, and basic logic of algorithmic systems, along with audit trails and representative datasets. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation offers valuable precedent through its “right to explanation for automated decisions.36 India could adopt similar provisions, requiring meaningful explanations when algorithms significantly affect individual rights. Independent oversight bodies with technical expertise could assess disclosure requests, ensuring transparency adapts to technological realities while protecting legitimate privacy and security concerns.

The Way Forward

The Right to Information Act, 2005, must evolve to address the complexities of digital and algorithmic governance that were unforeseeable at the time of its enactment.38 One critical reform involves establishing independent oversight bodies equipped with technical expertise to audit automated decision-making systems and ensure they operate transparently and fairly. These bodies could assess algorithmic impact, identify biases, and hold public authorities accountable for automated decisions that affect citizens’ rights and entitlements. Equally important is the introduction of a statutory “right to explanation” for individuals subjected to automated administrative decisions, similar to provisions under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.39 This would empower citizens to understand how algorithms process their data and reach conclusions, enabling meaningful challenges to erroneous or discriminatory outcomes. However, these reforms must be carefully calibrated to balance competing interests. Transparency cannot come at the cost of legitimate privacy protections or national security concerns. As India continues its digital transformation, the challenge lies in creating a governance framework that harmonizes algorithmic accountability with data protection, ensuring that technological advancement strengthens rather than undermines democratic principles and citizen trust in public administration.

Conclusion

This article has argued that India’s Right to Information Act, 2005, must be reimagined to address the challenges posed by data-driven and algorithmic governance. As administrative decision-making increasingly shifts from human discretion to automated systems, traditional transparency mechanisms prove inadequate for ensuring accountability. The conflict between transparency and privacy, while real, need not be irreconcilable. Through institutional reforms— including independent oversight bodies, mandatory algorithm impact assessments, and a statutory right to explanation—India can create a governance framework that balances citizens’ need to understand and challenge automated decisions with legitimate data protection concerns. The evolution from bureaucratic to algorithmic administration demands a corresponding evolution in accountability mechanisms. Ultimately, India must aspire toward a democratic model where technological advancement enhances rather than diminishes citizen agency, where transparency adapts to complexity without sacrificing its core purpose: empowering people to hold power accountable. Only then can the RTI Act fulfill its constitutional promise in the digital age.