Mumbai: Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis has ordered a stay on the Maharashtra government’s controversial decision to amend the rules governing the Right to Information (RTI) Act in the state, following widespread backlash and a threat of a hunger strike by veteran social activist Anna Hazare.Social activist Anna Hazare had threatened to launch an indefinite hunger strike from July 5 if the Maharashtra government did not immediately withdraw the “illegal” amendments to the RTI rules. (HT)The Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, notified on June 12, proposed several changes, including a hike in the RTI application fee from ₹10 to ₹30, mandatory submission of an identity proof, and a restriction that each application should deal with only one subject.While the state government had said the amendments were aimed at improving transparency and streamlining the processing of RTI applications, RTI activists and civil society organisations heavily criticised the move, calling the new rules restrictive.Days later, Hazare threatened to launch an indefinite hunger strike from July 5 if the Maharashtra government did not immediately withdraw the “illegal” amendments to the RTI rules. In a letter to the chief minister, the anti-corruption activist said the new rules diluted the spirit of the RTI Act by making it more difficult for citizens to obtain information. He objected to the higher fees, procedural hurdles and the more complicated appeal process. He also demanded that RTI activists and experts be consulted before the rules are finalised.Fadnavis then wrote to the chief information commissioner, Rahul Pande, directing him to stay the newly notified rules, according to officials familiar with the matter. The chief minister asked Pande not to implement the new rules without consulting Hazare. Pande then met Hazare in his village, Ralegan Siddhi, and briefed him on the new framework, but the activist remained firm on his decision to go on a hunger strike.“Our discussion with the respected Anna Hazare focused on the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act (RTI) in the state and on making the RTI regime more people-friendly through stronger implementation of proactive disclosure under section 4(1) of the RTI Act,” said Pande.“The recently notified RTI Rules were also discussed, and respected Anna underlined the importance of suo motu disclosure and demanded that implementation of the RTI Rules be put on hold. Accordingly, the honourable chief minister has directed that the implementation of the RTI Rules, 2026, be stayed. Under sections 27 to 29 of the RTI Act, the government is empowered to frame and notify rules and place them before both Houses at the earliest. We are deeply committed to strengthening the pro-people RTI regime and enforcing it more effectively,” he added.Under the new rules, the RTI application fee was raised from ₹10 to ₹30, while the cost of obtaining copies of documents was increased from ₹2 to ₹5 per page. Citizens would also have to pay ₹50 per hour to inspect original records at government offices after the first free hour. While applicants below the poverty line (BPL) were previously entitled to receive information free of charge, they would receive only the first 50 pages without charge under the new rules.The rules also mandated that applicants submit a self-attested copy of a photo identity document establishing Indian citizenship. They limited RTI applications to 150 words and required that each application seek information on only one subject. The rules further stated that information already available in the public domain need not be supplied again to applicants. The fee for the first appeal was increased from ₹20 to ₹50, while the charge for filing a second appeal before the state information commission was raised to ₹100.RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar said, “The rules needed to be stayed as the amended framework contained serious flaws, some of which were contrary to the parent Act itself. It cannot be denied that some activists seek irrational information. At the same time, some officers also act against the spirit of the Act.”