THIMPHU – In a quiet meeting hall arranged in a U-shape, Members of Parliament listened as journalists returned to a question that has lingered for more than a decade: how can the constitutional right to information be made to work in practice?
The consultation on access to information and the right to information (RTI), organised by the Journalists’ Association of Bhutan (JAB) on February 17, formed part of a broader series of multi-stakeholder engagements. Earlier discussions with media professionals, civil society organisations, and government stakeholders had underscored a shared understanding—that the right to information is not a privilege of the press, but a constitutional right of every citizen.
Opening the session, the organiser of the focus group discussion (FGD) grounded the conversation in both history and lived experience. In the absence of enabling legislation, the official noted, the right guaranteed under Article 7(3) of the Constitution remains largely aspirational.
The National Assembly (NA) passed the RTI Bill in February 2014 after detailed deliberation. However, the National Council (NC) did not deliberate on the Bill, raising concerns over insufficient consultation and lack of clarity. The resulting procedural deadlock left the Bill in dispute. Since then, it has remained in legislative limbo—neither formally withdrawn nor revived.
Findings from the 2025 Media Landscape Assessment indicate that younger journalists, in particular, face routine delays in obtaining official information. Public interest stories are sometimes abandoned. Information gaps are filled with speculation. Credibility erodes quietly.
Moderating the discussion, Tshering Dorji posed a fundamental question: how can a constitutional right function without a legal framework? In practice, access to information often depends on personal networks and informal arrangements—mechanisms that cannot guarantee equal access for all citizens.
An RTI law, he explained, would clarify who may request information, what categories are accessible, what exemptions apply, and how refusals can be appealed. International experience suggests that while such laws face implementation challenges, they can strengthen accountability and curb corruption when backed by political will, administrative preparedness, and credible oversight.
The discussion that followed reflected cautious but clear support among a group of MPs for revisiting the stalled Bill.
One Member suggested that Parliament must carefully examine why the earlier process reached a deadlock—why the NC did not deliberate on the Bill and why a joint sitting was not pursued. While expressing support in principle, he emphasised the need for precise definitions of sensitive information and exemptions to prevent ambiguity.
How the Bill stalled
The question of how the Bill faltered was revisited in findings of the NC’s Social and Cultural Affairs Committee, released on November 29, 2024.
According to the report, the RTI issue was first raised during Question Hour in the First Parliament, when the Good Governance Committee asked the Minister of Information and Communication about the necessity of such a law. Although the Minister indicated that a proposal would be introduced within a year, it did not materialise. A subsequent Private Member’s Bill submitted in 2012 did not secure sufficient support.
In the Second Parliament, the government introduced an RTI Bill, which was referred to the NC. However, the Legislative Committee was unable to consult relevant stakeholders. The Bill was returned to the NA with reservations. The Assembly, maintaining its position, deemed the Bill passed without amendments. It has since remained in Bill form.
The Committee also noted that stakeholders had questioned whether RTI was essential for ensuring the free flow of information. Globally, however, more than 130 countries have adopted RTI laws or constitutional guarantees. Experience elsewhere suggests that effectiveness depends less on the existence of a law alone and more on political commitment and institutional readiness.
Questioning readiness
During the consultation, one Member questioned whether Bhutan’s oft-cited “lack of readiness” remains a valid concern. Literacy rates have improved, citizens are more informed, and expectations of transparency have evolved. The hesitation, he suggested, may be institutional rather than societal.
“The Constitution begins with ‘We, the People,’” he noted, arguing that informed citizenship requires access to information. While national security and genuinely sensitive matters must be protected, routine governance information should not be shielded by default.
For others, the issue extends beyond legislation to institutional culture. A risk-averse bureaucratic mindset, they observed, can constrain openness. Without a shift in culture, even a well-crafted Act may struggle to transform practice. Yet the absence of a law allows inconsistency and uncertainty to persist.
Another MP shared a personal experience of requesting official information and receiving no response—an illustration of the gap between constitutional principle and administrative reality. Transparency, he argued, requires mechanisms, not merely declarations.
On the legislative pathway, Members were pragmatic. Advancing a Private Member’s Bill may prove difficult. A Government Bill, supported by consolidated evidence and a clearly articulated rationale, was viewed as more viable. Political will, many emphasised, must be accompanied by structured follow-through.
Concerns were also raised about the sustainability and independence of the media. If media viability remains closely tied to government support, gains in transparency may be fragile. Strengthening access to information, MPs noted, is therefore intertwined with strengthening democratic institutions more broadly.
From discussion to direction
By the close of the consultation, which was supported by the Digital Democracy Initiative (DDI) under the South Asia Project through Accountability Lab, several themes had crystallised.
There is broad recognition that the constitutional guarantee of the right to information must be operationalised. The reasons behind the 2014 impasse require careful review. Any renewed legislative effort must clearly define accessible information, exemptions, procedures, and safeguards.
Claims of institutional unpreparedness should be assessed with evidence, and where gaps exist, phased implementation may offer a practical path forward. Above all, prolonged discussion must now give way to legislative direction.
Bhutan’s Constitution affirms the sovereignty of its people. For that sovereignty to be meaningful, citizens must be informed participants in governance. The revival of the RTI Bill is not merely a procedural matter before Parliament; it is a test of how constitutional ideals are translated into everyday practice.
In the measured exchanges of the consultation room, one conclusion stood out: the right to information already exists on paper. The challenge now is to make it work in reality.
Leave a Reply