Section 29 of Right to Information Act:

Section 29(1)

Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.

Section 29(2)

Every rule made under this Act by a State Government shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is notified, before the State Legislature.

Explained:

Section 29 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with the laying of rules before Parliament and State Legislatures. It ensures legislative oversight over rules framed under the RTI Act and supports transparency and accountability in the administration of the law.

Section 29(1): Rules Made by the Central Government

Under Section 29(1), every rule made by the Central Government under the RTI Act must be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after it is made. The rule must remain before Parliament for a total period of thirty days, which may fall within one session or across two or more successive sessions.

If both Houses agree to modify the rule or decide that it should not have been made, the rule will operate only in its modified form or cease to have effect, as applicable. However, such modification or annulment does not invalidate actions already taken under the rule.

Section 29(2): Rules Made by State Governments

Section 29(2) provides that every rule made by a State Government under the RTI Act must be laid before the State Legislature as soon as possible after notification.

This provision ensures that state-level rules are also subject to legislative scrutiny. It is particularly relevant to the administration of the RTI Act in states such as Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

Important Judgments

1. Shivling Namdeorao Patwe v. State Information Commissioner (Bombay High Court, 2026)

In this case, the Court considered the limits of the State Information Commission’s power to recommend disciplinary action against a First Appellate Authority under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. The decision concerned the scope of the penalty provisions rather than a direct interpretation of Section 29. It highlights the importance of applying statutory powers within the limits prescribed by law.

2. N. Chellaperumal v. The Public Information Officer (Madras High Court, 2019)

This matter is listed among decisions associated with Section 29 of the RTI Act. The precise holding should be verified from the full judgment before relying on it as a precedent concerning the laying of rules.

Conclusion

Section 29 of the RTI Act, 2005 establishes a mechanism for legislative supervision of rules framed under the Act. By requiring Central Government rules to be placed before Parliament and State Government rules before the State Legislature, it promotes accountability in delegated legislation and helps ensure that the rules governing access to information remain subject to legislative scrutiny.