It has been nearly six decades since the UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights popularly known as ICCPR. Article 19 of ICCPR states: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
In Nepal’s case, the 1990 constitution, for the first time, recognized citizens’ right to demand information held by public agencies on matters of public importance. Actually, Nepal was ahead of other South Asian countries when it came to providing constitutional guarantee to Right to Information. Now, other South Asian countries are making a huge progress on RTI but Nepal is lagging behind. In Nepal, progressive constitutional provision remained largely unimplemented in the absence of a supportive law. Successive governments after 1990 did not pay any attention to formulate such legislation due to a lack of awareness about its importance for the effective functioning of the democracy.
The 2015 constitution further strengthened this right, stating that every citizen shall have the right to demand and receive information on any matter of personal and public interest, with exception of information legally designated as confidential. To support these constitutional guarantees, the Right to Information Act was enacted on 21 July 21 followed by the National Information Commission in 2009. Nepal now has both legal and institutional frameworks to protect people’s right to information. Yet, in practice, progress has been limited.
Government and non-governmental agencies, particularly the National Information Commission, have been active in raising awareness about the importance of RTI for democracy. Numerous training and seminars have been conducted, mainly targeting government officials. While these efforts have raised some awareness, they are often repetitive and ineffective. Nonetheless, journalists and activists have increasingly used RTI as a tool to expose corruption, which is a positive development.
The tendency to seek information from government bodies has grown, but it remains largely confined to activists and has yet to spread widely among ordinary citizens. Serious challenges continue to hinder effective implementation of the law. The most fundamental issue is the persistent failure to instill in political leaders and government officials that people have a right, not a privilege, to access information of public importance. Political leaders rarely encourage transparency; instead, they often side with bureaucrats in suppressing information. In many cases, leaders have even instructed agencies to withhold information rather than disclose it.
There still is a mindset among the politicians and bureaucracy that granting or denying access to information is at their discretion. In reality, the law has clearly stated what type of information may be withheld. This includes information that jeopardizes sovereignty, integrity, national security, public peace and stability, or that interferes with criminal investigation, inquiry and prosecution, or sensitive economic, trade and monetary matters. Beyond these exceptions, government agencies are obligated to provide information without restrictions. Instead of adhering to the law, many government agencies impose unnecessary conditions with the deliberate intent of suppressing information. Politicians and officials alike fear that if full disclosure were made, their corruption and irregularities would be exposed.
As per the law, every public office should appoint an information officer. While such officers do exist in government offices, they are rarely empowered. Most lack access to the information they are meant to provide, leaving people empty-handed when they make requests. On paper, government agencies appear to comply with proactive disclosure requirements by publishing reports every three months. In reality, these documents do not reveal anything about actual activities. They are often little more than recycled introductions and lists of duties and responsibilities; reprinted again and again to create the illusion of transparency.
The National Information Commission cannot remain satisfied with this surface-level compliance. Its focus must go beyond repetitive training seasons for government officials. Instead, it should actively monitor the information that government agencies are making public and investigate misleading practices and demand that agencies change their current approach to proactive disclosure. The priority in earlier years was to ensure that agencies appointed information officers and began publishing regular reports. That phase has passed. Now, the challenge is to push for meaningful disclosure of substantive information. The government offices should stop reprinting empty profiles again and again, taking both the public and the Commission for granted.
Another vital component is that people are not aware about the importance of their rights and responsibilities of the government agencies. While publicity campaigns have informed people that an RTI law exists, very few people understand its details and how to use it effectively. Knowledge remains confined to a small circle of political leaders, activists and professionals working in the field. Even students do not have comprehensive knowledge about RTI even though RTI has been incorporated in the school and university curricula. Students know about the RTI only from a narrow examination perspective, with little understanding of its practical application.
The National Information Commission, which is tasked with ensuring implementation of this law, should change its working style. Going beyond its routine seminar and lectures, it should identify bottlenecks and directly confront agencies that are misleading the public by publishing background information while concealing what truly matters. As a journalist, I often visit the websites of government agencies to read their proactive disclosure documents to find new information about works accomplished by them. But they always disappoint me. The format provided by the National Information Commission for the proactive disclosure, which is focused on background and general information rather than the substantive information, itself is problematic. Similarly, it should explain why government agencies are not empowering the information officers to provide the information. Similarly, it should find out why two decades of awareness campaigns have failed to build genuine public understanding. It should study new ways to disseminate the information in the ever-changing information ecosystem.
In conclusion, politicians and government agencies have yet to internalize that the right to information is a cornerstone of democracy. Now, we have to move on to phase two of the implementation of RTI—one that ensures not just the existence of laws and institutions but their effective use as well. Most importantly, people must be able to seek information without fear.
At present, many hesitate to approach officials for information, worried that they might be targeted if they do so. With corruption at unprecedented levels, especially at the local level where political leaders and bureaucrats are often complicit, the culture of opacity still persists. Breaking this cycle will require stronger enforcement, fearless oversight and a genuine political commitment.
