The RTI Act’s Supremacy Over Other Laws

When citizens across the country file Right to Information applications, they rarely pause to think about a quiet but powerful clause tucked inside the Act. Yet this one provision is the reason their applications carry real weight against a wall of older secrecy laws. Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is what gives the Act its teeth, allowing it to override conflicting laws and pull government information out from behind decades of bureaucratic silence. Without it, the RTI Act would be little more than a polite request form. With it, transparency becomes the default rule of Indian governance.

Understanding Section 22 and the idea of a non-obstante clause 🔗

Section 22 of the RTI Act is short in words but enormous in consequence. It declares that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. In plain language, this means that whenever any other law or rule clashes with the RTI Act on the question of disclosing information, the RTI Act wins.

Lawyers call this a non-obstante clause. The phrase “notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith” is the legal equivalent of putting one statute on top of all others. When legislators want a particular law to take priority over older or parallel legislation, they insert such a clause. This provision gives the Act priority over other conflicting legislation and resolves potential conflicts between transparency requirements and secrecy provisions that exist across the statute book.

The drafters did this deliberately. Before 2005, information disclosure was scattered across dozens of colonial-era rules, departmental manuals, and confidentiality clauses. A citizen asking a simple question could be refused on the basis of any one of them. Section 22 closes that escape route.

Why the Official Secrets Act is mentioned by name 🔗

The Act singles out the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) for a reason. The OSA is a colonial-era legislation that was enacted by the British to criminalise the unauthorised sharing of government information. It operated on the assumption that all official information was confidential unless specifically permitted to be released. For nearly eight decades after independence, it continued to shape how Indian bureaucrats treated public records.

By expressly naming the OSA, Section 22 removes any doubt. Even a statute as severe as the OSA, which carries penalties including imprisonment, cannot be used to reject a legitimate RTI application. When there is a conflict between the two laws, the provisions of the RTI Act override those of the OSA. This single line rewrote the grammar of Indian administration.

From a culture of secrecy to a presumption of disclosure 🔗

The real significance of Section 22 goes beyond its technical language. It represents a philosophical shift. For decades, the default position inside government offices was secrecy. Files were marked confidential almost as a matter of habit. Citizens who wanted to know how public money was spent or how decisions were made had no legal hook to pull that information out.

The RTI Act reversed this presumption. Now, disclosure is the rule and secrecy is the exception. Public authorities can only refuse information when the request falls within the narrow list of exemptions under Section 8 of the Act. Everything else must be shared. Section 22 makes sure this new rule is not quietly eroded by invoking older laws.

Why this shift matters for ordinary citizens 🔗

Consider what happens when an applicant files an RTI seeking details of a public infrastructure project. Before 2005, an uncooperative officer could cite the OSA, internal circulars, or departmental manuals to refuse. After Section 22, those shields simply do not work. The officer is bound to either supply the information or justify the refusal under one of the narrow exemptions within the RTI Act itself.

This matters because accountability depends on access. A government that cannot be questioned cannot be corrected. By ensuring that no other law can be used as a blanket excuse to deny information, Section 22 turns the RTI Act from a wish list into an enforceable guarantee.

What Section 22 overrides in practice 🔗

While the OSA is the most famous casualty of Section 22, the clause actually sweeps much wider. It overrides every law, rule, regulation, and instrument that tries to restrict disclosure in ways inconsistent with the Act. This includes:

Colonial and central statutes 🔗

The Indian Evidence Act, the Atomic Energy Act, departmental rules framed under the Banking Regulation Act, and similar laws all contain confidentiality provisions. Where those provisions collide with an RTI request, Section 22 pushes them aside. The Supreme Court has held that the RTI Act shall prevail insofar as transparency and access to information is concerned, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law like the RBI Act or Banking Regulation Act.

Internal circulars and service rules 🔗

Many public authorities have their own manuals that restrict sharing of information. Courts have clarified that these internal rules cannot trump the RTI Act. For instance, Supreme Court Rules and various High Court Rules have been held subordinate to the RTI Act in several cases before the Central Information Commission and the Delhi High Court.

Instruments having effect under other laws 🔗

The language of Section 22 also covers notifications, orders, and executive instructions issued under other laws. If such an instrument conflicts with the RTI Act, the Act prevails. This closes the possibility of bureaucrats using subordinate instruments to quietly undercut transparency.

Judicial backing for the overriding effect 🔗

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the supremacy of Section 22, giving it real muscle in practice. A few landmark decisions stand out.

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015) 🔗

In this case, the RBI refused to disclose inspection reports and defaulter lists of banks, claiming fiduciary confidentiality and economic interest. The Supreme Court rejected this stand. All banks in India are bound by this decision regarding the information they are obligated to disclose under the RTI Act. The judgment explicitly relied on Section 22 to hold that the RTI Act prevails over confidentiality provisions in banking regulations.

The Rafale documents case 🔗

When the government invoked the OSA against newspapers that had published documents relating to the Rafale deal, the Supreme Court examined the interplay between Section 22 of the RTI Act and the Official Secrets Act, observing that Section 22 has an overriding effect. The Court refused to treat the OSA as a bar to scrutiny once the information was already in public domain, reinforcing the transparency framework.

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 🔗

Here the Supreme Court held that students could access their evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, brushing aside board regulations that claimed confidentiality. The judgment emphasised that the RTI Act had fundamentally changed the approach to government information, moving it from exclusive control of public authorities to shared access with citizens.

The retrospective reach of the Act 🔗

Another striking feature of the RTI Act is its retrospective application. The Act applies to all information held by public authorities, regardless of when that information was created or recorded. Whether a file was prepared in 1975 or 2024, if it is currently in the custody of a public authority, it falls within the Act’s scope.

This is crucial for investigations into past decisions. Scams, misallocations, and policy failures often take years to surface. If the RTI Act only covered post-2005 records, a large part of India’s administrative history would remain sealed. The retrospective reach ensures continuity in transparency across governments and decades.

Section 8(2) and the public interest override 🔗

Section 22 does not work in isolation. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act complements it by providing an additional layer of openness. It states that a public authority may allow access to information covered under the OSA if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Together, Sections 22 and 8(2) ensure that neither older laws nor the Act’s own exemptions can be used as a blanket barrier when the public stake is high.

Limits of the overriding effect 🔗

Section 22 is powerful, but it is not absolute. It does not wipe out every secrecy provision in every law. The exemptions listed in Section 8 of the RTI Act itself continue to apply. These include information affecting national security, strategic interests, trade secrets, personal privacy, and matters held in fiduciary capacity, among others.

Courts have also clarified that Section 22 does not repeal earlier statutes. It simply ensures that, where there is a direct conflict on the question of disclosure, the RTI Act prevails. The underlying laws continue to function in their own domains. For example, the Official Secrets Act still applies to espionage and unauthorised communication of sensitive defence information. What it cannot do is be used as a shield against routine RTI requests.

Recent legislative pressures 🔗

It is worth noting that the Section 22 framework has faced legislative pressure in recent years. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amended Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, exempting all personal information from disclosure, which can restrict the transparency of public officials’ actions. While this does not directly touch Section 22, it narrows the universe of disclosable information and has become a point of active public debate.

Using Section 22 as a practical tool 🔗

For anyone filing an RTI application, Section 22 is worth knowing by heart. When an officer cites some obscure departmental manual or an older confidentiality clause to deny information, a simple reference to Section 22 in the first or second appeal can turn the case around. Citing Section 22 when officials deny access based on other laws, referencing relevant court judgments, and filing appeals confidently by asserting the right under RTI empowers citizens to challenge denials rooted in outdated laws or bureaucratic resistance.

The practical workflow looks like this. The applicant files an RTI request. If denied on the basis of some other law, the applicant invokes Section 22 in the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority. If still unsatisfied, a second appeal can be filed before the Central or State Information Commission, where the non-obstante clause becomes a central argument backed by a growing body of Supreme Court and High Court rulings.

Why Section 22 is the heart of the RTI Act 🔗

Strip away Section 22, and the RTI Act begins to look fragile. Every older secrecy law would become a potential counter-argument. Every departmental rule would become a convenient excuse. The right would exist on paper but dissolve in practice.

By creating an unambiguous hierarchy, Section 22 achieves three things at once. It protects the citizen’s right to know from being diluted by parallel legislation. It binds public authorities to a single, coherent transparency regime. And it sends a clear signal to courts and commissions that, in any contest between secrecy and disclosure, the presumption must tilt towards the people.

This is why, two decades after the Act came into force, Section 22 continues to be cited in nearly every significant RTI dispute. It is the clause that turns a well-meaning law into a living right.

What do you think? Has there been a moment in your experience when you, or someone you know, was denied information under an older secrecy law, and how might Section 22 have changed that outcome? And as newer laws like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act reshape the disclosure landscape, do you believe Section 22 will continue to hold its overriding character in the decades to come?

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1971086/
2. https://thelaw.institute/business-law-as-applicable-to-co-operative-i/rti-act-2005-supremacy-over-laws/
3. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/rti-vs-osa
4. https://www.supremecourtcases.com/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-n-mistry/
5. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/reserve-bank-india-v-mistry/
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1923
7. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/20-years-of-rti-act-2005
8. https://www.apnilaw.com/documentation/can-the-official-secrets-act-override-the-right-to-information-rti/