Q. “The Right to Information Act is designed to ensure transparency by providing information, but it does not address grievance redressal.” Critically examine.

Approach:
Introduction:
Begin by explaining the constitutional basis of the Right to Information Act, 2005—Article 19(1)(a)—highlighting its role in promoting transparency and democratic accountability. Mention an example like the Adarsh Housing Scam to underscore its impact.
Body:
1. RTI and Ethical Limits of Transparency:
-Discuss how RTI enables awareness of injustice but does not guarantee redress, thus failing the ,ethical standard of substantive justice.
-Analyse the limitations in moral agency and procedural fairness, especially for marginalized groups.
-Explore the psychological and democratic consequences of unresolved RTI disclosures.
2. Grievance Redressal Deficits:
-Explain the absence of institutional mechanisms for remedial action post-disclosure.
-Examine fragmented accountability, individual burden, and the symbolic nature of empowerment without follow-up.
Conclusion:
Conclude by arguing that RTI needs to be integrated with grievance redress mechanisms such as Lokpal, social audits, and service delivery guarantees. Connect this with Articles 14 and 21 to advocate a rights-based, justice-oriented information regime.

Introduction
The Right to Information Act, 2005, rooted in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, promotes transparency by granting citizens access to public information. For instance, the Adarsh Housing Scam was exposed using RTI. However, the Act lacks grievance redressal mechanisms, limiting its ability to ensure justice or accountability beyond disclosure.

Body:
RTI and the Ethical Limits of Transparency
1. Transparency Without Justice
The Act facilitates the discovery of wrongdoing but offers no remedy. Ethically, this fails the test of substantive justice, which demands both truth and correction.
2. Incomplete Moral Agency
Citizens may know their rights are violated but cannot act meaningfully within the RTI framework. This restricts their ethical agency.
3. Procedural Fairness Gap
While transparency is ensured, fairness in outcome is not. Without institutional follow-up, the system favors those who can afford legal redress.
4. Inequity in Accessing Remedies
Disadvantaged groups often lack access to legal aid or grievance forums. This deepens inequality and violates the principle of equity in justice.
5. Public Trust and Democratic Fatigue
When RTI leads to awareness but not resolution, it can result in disillusionment, weakening citizens' trust in democratic institutions.

Limitations in Grievance Redressal: A Critical Perspective
1. No Inbuilt Remedy The Act does not allow citizens to resolve issues discovered via RTI. They must approach courts or separate grievance cells, which are slow and inaccessible.
2. Accountability Remains Fragmented RTI exposes fault, but institutions responsible for correction are disconnected. This weakens the chain of accountability.
3. Burden on the Individual The citizen is expected to pursue justice independently, regardless of their legal literacy or financial capacity.
4. Symbolic Empowerment Only Without corrective action, RTI risks becoming merely symbolic—offering knowledge without impact.
5. Erosion of Institutional Credibility Unaddressed revelations can create a perception that the system is unresponsive, further alienating citizens.

Conclusion:
The RTI Act is a powerful transparency tool but lacks the strength to ensure justice. For full accountability, it must be linked to grievance redressal mechanisms like Lokpal, social audits, and service guarantees. Articles 14 and 21 demand not only the right to know, but also the right to be heard and helped.