Section 30 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with the power of the Central Government to remove difficulties that may arise while implementing the Act. The provision was introduced to ensure that practical or administrative obstacles did not prevent the effective enforcement of the right to information.

1. Section 30(1): Power to Remove Difficulties

Under Section 30(1), if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the RTI Act, the Central Government may issue an order published in the Official Gazette. Such an order may contain provisions considered necessary or expedient to resolve the difficulty, provided that they are not inconsistent with the Act.

This power is intended to address implementation-related problems. It does not give the Central Government unrestricted authority to amend the Act or override the rights and safeguards established by Parliament.

Two-Year Time Limit

The proviso to Section 30(1) expressly states that no order under this provision may be made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the Act. This time limit restricts the period during which the special power to remove difficulties could be exercised.

2. Section 30(2): Parliamentary Oversight

Section 30(2) requires every order made under Section 30 to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible after it is issued. This requirement promotes legislative oversight and accountability over the exercise of executive power.

Original Text of Section 30

Section 30 – Power to remove difficulties

“(1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty:

Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act.

(2) Every order made under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament.”

Important Judgments

1. Sajeerudheen v. Superintendent of Police (Kerala High Court, 2016)

This case is listed among judicial decisions associated with Section 30 of the RTI Act. It may be relevant when researching the practical application of the provision. The precise holding should be checked against the full judgment before relying on it as authority for a specific proposition.

2. Supreme Court decisions on statutory interpretation

When interpreting Section 30, general principles of statutory interpretation remain important: delegated executive powers must stay within the limits prescribed by the parent legislation and cannot override its express provisions. A judgment directly interpreting Section 30 should be distinguished from decisions dealing with these general principles.

Conclusion

Section 30 of the RTI Act, 2005, provides a limited mechanism for addressing difficulties in implementing the legislation. Its two-year time limit and requirement of parliamentary oversight are important safeguards against excessive executive power. The provision should be read alongside the Act’s substantive transparency obligations and statutory protections.