Citizens curious about the government-funded road construction project whose completion has been delayed by over a year, aggrieved government job candidates who suspect the selection process was rigged, villagers who believe their elected panchayat is not properly utilizing the funds allocated for infrastructure development as there are no visible improvements- have their fundamental right to information against government agencies and public authorities for transparency and accountability, provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This blog attempts an incisive analysis of the said Act, discussing its origin, process of application, exemptions, and limitations by duly considering the statutes and relevant case laws.
The fundamental right to know-
Indira Gandhi defeated Raj Narain, a social leader, in the 1971 General Elections in Rae Barelli, Uttar Pradesh, and Narain alleged that Gandhi had misused government resources for electoral advantages. Allahabad High Court found Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices and asked them to disclose the “Blue Book”, a document providing security requirements for the Prime Minister’s safety while travelling. The Supreme Court upheld the same in the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865. Sailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner and RTI activist, believes it to be the first landmark pronouncement recognizing the Right to Information as a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, and it falls under the ambit of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under this article. This has been reiterated time and again in several other Supreme Court judgements, such as S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, where the Court directed for disclosure of communication between the then Minister of Law, the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and the Chief Justice of India, citing public fairness. These cases have effectively helped in promoting government transparency and accountability. Public officials can be held accountable, too. The Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264, held that while the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life, any publication with respect to a government authority or official is an exception to this if such Authority voluntarily thrusts itself into controversy. The rationale was that once an issue is classified as a public record, the right to privacy ceases to exist.
Right to Information Act, (2005) – The legal right to know and the obligation of public bodies to provide information
The Indian Parliament recognized and codified this fundamental right in the Right to Information Act, 2005. It gives the right to any citizen to ask for information from its government, and the concerned department is under compulsion to respond within 30 days under Section 7(1) of the Act. In the foreground, all public authorities, such as bodies substantially financed by the government at various levels, are included as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. While the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the said Act is inclusive, it means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material, and electronic data held by a public authority. It entitles the citizens to inspect the works, take notes and extracts, and also to obtain certified copies of documents in their own interest, and request information in diskettes, floppies, tapes, or any other electronic mode or printouts, as mentioned in Section 2(j) of the Act. However, in Khanpuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 615, the Court had held that while an applicant, under section 6 of the Act, has the right to obtain copies of views, recommendations, circulars, orders, and other documents, any information which is already in existence and accessible to public Authority under law, the Act prohibits requesting information about the basis for such opinions or decisions, especially in judicial matters. Section 3 of the Act extends this right to all Indian nationals to receive information from public authorities to promote transparency and accountability in the democratically elected government’s work. Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) go on to extend the obligation of public authorities to maintain and catalogue their records in such a fashion as to facilitate their easy access. These sections obligate the authorities to publish organizational details, decision-making processes, budgets, and rules within 120 days of such implementation. Public bodies are obliged to continuously update such information and make the same available electronically so as to reduce reliance on physical copies and formal RTI applications. Section 4(2) of the Act enables the Authority to publish information suo motu through websites and other modes of communication so as to be transparent and reduce dependence on citizens seeking information under the Act.
The process of filing an RTI
Filing an application under the RTI Act of 2005 is intended to be straightforward and accessible. According to Section 6(1) of the Act, residents may submit a written request or utilize electronic means in English, Hindi, or the official language of the area where the application is submitted. Significantly, applicants are not obliged to specify the purpose for obtaining information, as stated in Section 6(2) of the said Act. This clause guarantees that people can seek information without fear of reprisal or discrimination based on their motivations.
If the requested information refers to another public authority, Section 6(3) of the Act requires the public body receiving the application to transfer it to the relevant Authority within five days and notify the applicant of the transfer.
Section 7(1) of the Act underlines the need to respond to urgent requests, particularly those involving a person’s life or liberty, within 48 hours of receipt. In all other circumstances, the Public Authority must answer within thirty days after receiving the request. This prioritizing guarantees that vital information is supplied swiftly, preserving persons’ right in urgent cases.
According to Section 5(1) of the Act, each Public Authority must select Public Information Officers (PIOs) who receive RTI requests. These PIOs must supply requested information or justify any refusal in accordance with the terms of the Act. If a Public Information Officer (PIO) refuses or fails to give the requested information within the time frame specified or provides erroneous, incomplete, or delayed information, the concerned citizen may file an appeal. The appeal process is outlined in Section 19 of the Act, which allows the aggrieved party to initially appeal to a senior official within the same Public Authority. If dissatisfied with the result, a second appeal can be filed with the Central Information Commission (CIC) or the State Information Commission (SIC). The Central Information Commission (CIC) or the State Information Commission (SIC) are independent authorities to be constituted by the Central and State Governments under sections 12 and 15 of the RTI Act, respectively, entrusted with enforcing compliance with the RTI Act and hearing appeals and complaints. Section 20 of the Act, imposes sanctions on a PIO who unlawfully denies information, causes excessive delay, or acts in bad faith. The penalty is Rs. 250 for each day of delay, with a maximum of Rs. 25,000/-. Section 20(1) of the Act also specifies that the Public Information Officer bears the burden of establishing that the rejection or delay was justified. The Allahabad High Court in Public Information Officer vs. State Information Commission, U.P. & Ors., AP 3262 (M.B.) of 2008 had interpreted section 18 of the Act that constitutes powers given to the Commissions and held that the Commission, while enquiring into the complaint under Section 18 of the Act, can also issue necessary directions for disclosure of the information asked for, in case the Commission is satisfied that the information has been wrongly withheld or has not been completely given or incorrect information has been given.
Exemptions
The exemptions mentioned in sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act are consistent with Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, which states that the rights given under Article 19(1)(a) that is freedom of speech and expression, can be subjected to reasonable restrictions to protect India’s sovereignty and integrity, security, good relations with other countries, public order, decency, and morality, as well as to prevent contempt of Court, defamation, or encouragement to crimes.
Section 8 of the RTI Act permits the rejection of information pertaining to problems impacting India’s sovereignty, national security, and economic interests. It also allows withholding personal information, trade secrets, or sensitive data kept in a fiduciary role unless the public interest requires disclosure. Exempt information may nonetheless be made available if it cannot be concealed from Parliament or State Legislatures.
Section 9 of the Act permits the denial of RTI requests that might violate Copyright Law, while Section 24 of the Act exempts intelligence and security services from the Act, save in situations of corruption or human rights breaches.
Justice Ravindra Bhat, in Bhagat Singh vs. CIC, 146 (2008) DLT 385, had embodied the spirit of this Act and stated that Section 3 of the Act is an access to information, is the rule and the exemptions under section 8 as the exception and RTI Act should be construed as such that the right to information is protected rather than restricted. Section 8(1)(h) provides an exception if releasing information would obstruct an investigation or prosecution. Authorities must demonstrate reasonable, material-based justifications for withholding information since the mere presence of an inquiry is inadequate. These justifications must be relevant and fair, otherwise the clause may be abused to prevent disclosure.
The RTI Act, as a rights-based welfare tool, demands a broad interpretation. Exemptions in Section 8 should be narrowly interpreted since they limit the right to information. Overly broad interpretations may unjustifiably restrict the rights guaranteed by the Act.
Shortcomings in Awareness and Administration
According to a study by the Right to Information Assessment and Analysis Group (RAAG), approximately 54% of RTI petitions requested information that public authorities were required to provide by default under Section 4 of the Act.
Another study reports there is an abysmal amount of public awareness regarding the rights under this Act, even though section 26 of the Act states that the government may create educational programs to help disadvantaged groups learn how to exercise their rights as outlined in the Act. However, the survey found that only 15% of respondents knew the RTI Act. Women’s awareness levels were found to be lower than men’s. The rural population has lower awareness levels than the urban population. Under Section 26 of the RTI Act, the government must create and disseminate user manuals for information seekers within 18 months of its implementation. However, the information provider survey indicated that Nodal departments of none of the five states where this survey took place had issued these guidelines.
Some states have given a common application form under Section 26(3)(c) of the RTI Act, but it is not required under the Act. The standard form collects basic information such as addresses, contact numbers, and requested forms, allowing PIOs to provide necessary information and communicate with applicants under section 7(3)of the Act. Suppose basic information is accessible and correctly categorized by the PIO/PA. In that case, the Public Authority can identify frequently requested information and offer it as a suo moto disclosure under Section 4(2) of the Act. Out of the five states studied, only two had a standard form.
Section 5(3) of the RTI Act requires public information officers (PIOs) to help individuals in writing RTI petitions. During the Information Seeker survey, over 49% of respondents reported not receiving support from the PIO in preparing and completing RTI petitions.
While there are penalties to be imposed as per section 20(3), they are only applied in a few circumstances, based on conversations with Civil Society Organizations and survey results. Citizens and Civil Society Organizations believe the Information Commission encourages erring PIOs, as more than half of RTI petitions are completed after 30 days.
Conclusion
This legislation empowers Indian individuals to demand information from Public Authorities, increasing accountability and responsibility for the government and its functions. India quickly implemented the Act after adoption, unlike other nations such as the U.K., which required years. However, the RTI Act’s usefulness is now hampered by severe problems, such as a lack of public awareness and insufficient administrative assistance. To fully realize the potential of the RTI Act, the government must engage in educational initiatives that educate individuals on their rights and the process of making RTI requests. Furthermore, public bodies must alter their administrative methods to provide better information access. By addressing these issues, we can guarantee that the RTI Act accomplishes its goal of building a more open and accountable governmental system, eventually allowing individuals to hold their government responsible.
