The Transparency Test: Election Commission, RTI and the Battle for Institutional Credibility

The institution that asks political parties to reveal their finances, candidates to disclose their assets and voters to make informed choices now faces a question of its own: why should citizens not know how public money is being spent by the body that conducts their elections?

The Election Commission of India (ECI), the constitutional guardian of the world's largest electoral exercise, derives its authority not merely from the Constitution but from public confidence. That confidence rests on a simple democratic principle: institutions entrusted with public power must remain answerable to the public.

The Commission's recent refusal to disclose details of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's official visits has brought this principle into sharp focus. Responding to an RTI application filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale, the ECI declined to provide details of the CEC's domestic and foreign official visits since assuming office on February 19, 2025, along with expenditure incurred from the public exchequer.

The Commission justified its decision by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, arguing that the requested information constituted "personal information" exempt from disclosure. In its view, details relating to the Chief Election Commissioner's official visits fell within the privacy exemption provided under the Act.

The central question, however, is not whether privacy deserves protection. It undoubtedly does. The real question is whether expenditure incurred while discharging constitutional duties can legitimately be treated as personal information.

When Public Expenditure Becomes "Personal Information"

The RTI application did not seek personal schedules, real-time movement, security arrangements or private correspondence. It sought information regarding official visits, travel expenditure, accommodation costs, allowances, local transport expenses and accompanying officials.

These are administrative actions financed by taxpayers.

Section 8(1)(j) was enacted to protect individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their private lives. It was never intended to create a blanket shield around every action of a constitutional authority. The distinction between the individual and the office is fundamental.

The Supreme Court, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013), held that service records, disciplinary proceedings, income-tax returns and asset declarations of a public servant ordinarily qualify as personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j). At the same time, the Court made it equally clear that the exemption is not absolute and that disclosure may still be ordered where a larger public interest justifies it.

That distinction is crucial here. The information sought does not concern the CEC's private life, health, family or confidential service records. It concerns expenditure incurred from the public exchequer while performing official constitutional functions. Whether such expenditure falls within the realm of personal privacy is therefore a question that deserves careful judicial scrutiny rather than a mechanical invocation of the exemption.

The concern is not privacy itself but privacy inflation: the gradual expansion of a legitimate protection into a broad excuse against accountability. When every administrative action of a constitutional authority begins to be labelled personal information, the citizen's right to know inevitably shrinks.

Transparency as a Constitutional Value

The right to information is not merely a statutory privilege created by Parliament. It flows from the constitutional guarantee of informed citizenship under Article 19(1)(a), which the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted as including the citizen's right to know.

The Election Commission occupies a unique position because it does not merely administer government programmes. It supervises the process through which governments derive democratic legitimacy. Its standards of transparency must therefore be higher, not lower, than those expected of ordinary public authorities.

Independence cannot mean immunity from scrutiny. On the contrary, transparency strengthens institutional independence by reinforcing public trust. Secrecy breeds suspicion; openness builds legitimacy.

The Referee Must Also Face the Scoreboard

The Election Commission routinely insists on transparency from others. Candidates must disclose criminal records and assets. Political actors are expected to submit information essential for informed electoral choice.

Democratic accountability, however, cannot operate as a one-way street where citizens and political parties disclose everything while constitutional institutions reveal only what they choose.

An institution that demands transparency from others must hold itself to an equally exacting standard.

This controversy is therefore larger than one RTI application or one office-holder. It concerns the institutional culture of openness. A constitutional office cannot be treated as an extension of the private sphere of the individual occupying it. The greater the public responsibility, the stronger the expectation of transparency.

Beyond Political Allegations

The political identity of the RTI applicant cannot be ignored. Saket Gokhale is an opposition leader, and the issue has naturally acquired political overtones.

Yet the identity of the applicant should neither strengthen nor weaken the legitimacy of the question. Transparency cannot depend on who asks; it depends on whether the information sought concerns public interest.

Accountability for public expenditure is not an opposition demand. It is a democratic obligation applicable to every constitutional institution.

The Way Forward

The Election Commission still has an opportunity to reinforce public confidence through a more transparent approach. Security-sensitive information and personal details deserve protection, but aggregate travel expenditure, official tour costs and administrative decisions should ideally be disclosed proactively under the spirit of Section 4 of the RTI Act, reducing the need for citizens to seek routine information through RTI.

The larger concern extends beyond one rejected application. It reflects the gradual weakening of the principle that public institutions must justify their actions to the citizens they serve.

The Election Commission is not merely another constitutional body. It is the guardian of India's democratic process. Its greatest asset is not secrecy but credibility, and credibility survives only when institutions are willing to answer difficult questions.

A democracy's referee must not only ensure that the game is fair; it must also allow citizens to see how the referee itself operates.