Let me tell you the truth: there is an ocean of information out there that you cannot access for free. Research papers, government documents, and classified files—none of that is just sitting there for the average person to access. However, in 2006, Julian Assange decided he was not about that life and launched WikiLeaks. The platform’s tagline read, “Here’s everything they don’t want you to see.” This sparked an unsettled global debate. Should all information be free for everyone, or are there legitimate reasons to keep some things locked up?

WikiLeaks: The tip of the iceberg

When WikiLeaks surfaced, it arrived like the thug of the World Wide Web, blowing the lid off war and political scandals. Julian Assange did not just spill the tea; he poured it all over the table. Leaks like the Iraq War Logs exposed governments in ways that had people questioning everything they thought they knew about their governments. Various governments worldwide panicked while the scholars debated, and the public got a front-row seat to a car crash you cannot look away from.

But hold up. What happens when you start exposing classified information? Is it all good because the public has a right to know, or is it reckless because of the potential dangers it brings? Assange’s leaks showed that full transparency could lead to real-world risks like national security threats and endangering lives. So, how far should we go?

The Great Debate: Should all info be free?

Let’s break it down. You’ve got the “free the info” crowd on one side. These people believe that information should be available to everyone. Why should you pay to read a research paper that’s probably been funded by taxpayers’ money? Why should governments get to hide behind classified documents? After all, transparency keeps people in power accountable for their actions, right?

Conversely, some boomers are ready to say, “Hey, relax, man!” It’s important not to drop all the truth bombs, as some information can be lethal if swiped by the ops. Moreover, researchers and scholars need to secure that bag from their work. I mean, someone’s got to fund those lab experiments and think tanks, right?

What does India Think? Let’s talk about RTI and Transparency

India is no stranger to the debate on transparency and information sharing. In fact, we have our own version of WikiLeaks Lite – the Right to Information Act, 2005. This law gives every citizen the right to request information from the government on anything except classified information—that is, the Bond 007 secret level.

But here is the catch. Just like every provision, this act has its limitations. Under Section 8, exceptions are provided for reasons such as national security, international relations, and information prejudicial to the public interest. For example, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that freedom of information must be protected. Still, it is just as essential to protect national security, too. It is all an effort to find that perfect middle ground.

Why should you care about this?

Consider it this way. You need legitimate data to make the right decisions regarding your health and political views. But how do we move forward as a society if such information is locked away behind paywalls and subscriptions? Picture yourself as a law student preparing an assignment. You cannot access credible sources because you do not have paid subscriptions. You would either have to pay an astronomical amount or get half-backed information. Not ideal, right?

Moreover, deciding the role of social media and fake news in such cases is relevant. Slander wins over veracity on social media, particularly on Instagram, TikTok, and X (Twitter). Hence, reliable and uncensored information has never been more critical.

 The dangers of embracing info to the extent of YOLO

Okay, let’s pump the brakes. It is not as simplistic as flooding the Internet with information. Julian Assange put this lesson into practice. The unrestrained distribution of classified information put national security at risk and strained diplomatic relations between countries. This is not about telling everyone about tea spills but about the consequences that come with them. If you are in India, you must know that our fundamental rights are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable restrictions. There is a flurry of Supreme Court judgments on this. The Official Secrets Act, 1923, the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Information Technology Act, 2000 are some laws the governments can rely on to prevent access to classified information.

After all, it is crucial to consider that some people are out grinding to produce that information instead of telling us, “Just give us all the info.”

The Assange Effect

This story may sound like a global one involving government and military operations, but its reverberation can also be heard in India. The discussion regarding transparency/opacity of information is not only about revealing foreign authorities or military actions—it is about the structures of power everywhere, including our own.

For instance, the Aarushi Talwar Murder Case had no relation to world politics or secret military documents. Still, sensational news leaks and selective disclosure had a significant impact on forming the public perception. Yes, judgments were being passed not only in the courtroom but also on TV channels, newspaper articles, and social media. Titbits of information were pouring in from the investigation reports or tapped from insiders. Such leaks made everybody align public opinion one way or another, and very soon, people had an opinion on who was guilty. The information was dangerous, solid, and influential. You can now understand how it could tilt the scales of justice.

Now, take the obvious example of the Adarsh Housing Society scam. Top-secret government papers were released to the public, revealing massive fraud. The disclosures probed how civil servants, ministers, and military officers racketeered to break the rules and get flats in a towering building made for war heroes and their widows in Mumbai. This is how much the media exposed this fraud through the leakages of some government documents. On the one hand, the leak made corruption visible. On the other hand, it posed an important question: To what extent should the information be disclosed, mainly if it is derived from top-secret files?

WikiLeaks’ influence is evident in both cases. While leaks can reveal corruption, they can also destabilise justice and governance. Thus, we are still working out in India the balance between freedom of information and genuinely relevant public interests such as national security, privacy, international relations, and public order.

The paradox of social media and transparency

Misinformation and social networks merge with the problem of oversharing since platforms like Facebook, Twitter (X), and Instagram have become the primary vehicles of information exchange. On these platforms, fake news travels more frequently than factual news, thanks to the power of algorithms that tend to reward sensationalism and emotionally eliciting content. This dynamic presents a problem whenever information like the kind released by WikiLeaks leaks to the public.

Despite its intention to hold governments and organisations accountable by disclosing otherwise concealed actions, WikiLeaks’ version of transparency has been exploited as a weapon by various political parties. Across party lines, people only use specific information that supports their view while ignoring the rest. This cherry-picked information quickly gets spread over social media platforms, thus influencing the growth of misinformation, with the public having no way of knowing what is real.

For instance, WikiLeaks released massive amounts of information relating to DNC emails, which revealed the truth but also sparked conspiracy theories and polarised the political scenario. In particular, when such leaks are taken in part and posted on social media, they help paint an inaccurate picture of what happened. This paradox of social media and complete transparency underscores the complexity of having open and unrestricted access to information.

Conclusion: To leak or not to leak

Do you recall that Pegasus spyware? The Indian government was accused of using Israeli-created Pegasus to spy on journalists, activists, and even opposition leaders. When all information is supposed to be free and public, where does government spying enter the equation? This means that the debate, which otherwise could be considered theoretical, is already happening. The Pegasus scandal pulled the curtain over ethical issues such as transparency of governments and the intelligence octopus, privacy, and the use of technology in surveillance.

Free information is a very delicate process. Government data and research play a significant role in progressive development, creating flowing ideas and keeping democracy alive. Some things should remain hidden for all the right reasons—misuse, harm, and even chaos and they are not far behind if the information ends up in the wrong hands without precaution. Where, then, do we make a stand? Perhaps the right question is not about open access and confidentiality but how to balance the two options. The more thoughtful way is where we try to achieve the highest level of transparency alongside the highest level of responsibility.

We must articulate and disseminate what is actually in the public domain’s best interests while at the same time preserving and protecting what ensures society’s well-being. Finally, it is resolved not into which side one believes but into considering that some doors should be closed because not every secret has to be told. We strive to achieve this balance; every leak or lack of it changes the balance of powers.