The Right to Information Act - UPSC

The Right to Information,[RTI]

Historical Background

The right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution. In 1976, in the Raj Narain vs the State of Uttar Pradesh case, the Supreme Court ruled that Right to information will be treated as a fundamental right under article 19. The Supreme Court held that in Indian democracy, people are the masters and they have the right to know about the working of the government.

Thus the government enacted the Right to Information act in 2005 which provides machinery for exercising this fundamental right..

The Right to Information Act of 2005

The act is one of the most important acts which empowers ordinary citizens to question the government and its working. This has been widely used by citizens and media to uncover corruption, progress in government work, expenses related information, etc.

All constitutional authorities, agencies, owned and controlled, also those organisations which are substantially financed by the government comes under the purview of the act. The act also mandates public authorities of union government or state government, to provide timely response to the citizens’ request for information.

The act also imposes penalties if the authorities delay in responding to the citizen in the stipulated time.

What type of information can be requested through RTI?

The citizens can seek any information from the government authorities that the government can disclose to the parliament.

Some information that can affect the sovereignty and the integrity of India is exempted from the purview of RTI.

Information relating to internal security, relations with foreign countries, intellectual property rights (IPR), cabinet discussions are exempted from RTI.

Objectives of the RTI Act

Empower citizens to question the government.

The act promotes transparency and accountability in the working of the government.

The act also helps in containing corruption in the government and work for the people in a better way.

The act envisages building better-informed citizens who would keep necessary vigil about the functioning of the government machinery.

Important provisions under the Right to Information Act, 2005

Section 2(h): Public authorities mean all authorities and bodies under the union government, state government or local bodies. The civil societies that are substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by the public funds also fall within the ambit of RTI.

Section 4 1(b): Government has to maintain and proactively disclose information.

Section 6: Prescribes a simple procedure for securing information.

Section 7: Prescribes a time frame for providing information(s) by PIOs.

Section 8: Only minimum information exempted from disclosure.

Section 8(1): mentions exemptions against furnishing information under the RTI Act.

Section 8(2): provides for disclosure of information exempted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 if the larger public interest is served.

Section 19: Two-tier mechanism for appeal.

Section 20: Provides penalties in case of failure to provide information on time, incorrect, incomplete or misleading or distorted information.

Section 23: Lower courts are barred from entertaining suits or applications. However, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India and high courts under Articles 32 and 225 of the Constitution remains unaffected.

Significance of the RTI Act

The RTI Act, 2005 empowers the citizen to question the secrecy and abuse of power practised in governance.

It is through the information commissions at the central and state levels that access to such information is provided.

RTI information can be regarded as a public good, for it is relevant to the interests of citizens and is a crucial pillar for the functioning of a transparent and vibrant democracy.

The information obtained not only helps in making government accountable but also useful for other purposes which would serve the

Importance

The RTI Act, 2005 did not create a new bureaucracy for implementing the law. Instead, it tasked and mandated officials in every office to change their attitude and duty from one of secrecy to one of sharing and openness.

It carefully and deliberately empowered the Information Commission to be the highest authority in the country with the mandate to order any office in the country to provide information as per the provisions of the Act. And it empowered the Commission to fine any official who did not follow the mandate.

Right to information has been seen as the key to strengthening participatory democracy and ushering in people centred governance.

Access to information can empower the poor and the weaker sections of society to demand and get information about public policies and actions, thereby leading to their welfare. It showed an early promise by exposing wrongdoings at high places, such as in the organisation of the Commonwealth Games, and the allocation of 2G spectrum and coal blocks.

Right to information opens up government’s records to public scrutiny, thereby arming citizens with a vital tool to inform them about what the government does and how effectively, thus making the government more accountable.

Improves decision making by public authority by removing unnecessary secrecy.

Challenges

• Different types of information is sought which has no public interest and sometimes can be used to misuse the law and harass the public authorities. For example-
• Asking for desperate and voluminous information.
• To attain publicity by filing RTI
• RTI filed as vindictive tool to harass or pressurize the public authority
• Because of the illiteracy and unawareness among the majority of population in the country, the RTI cannot be exercised.
• Though RTI’s aim is not to create a grievance redressal mechanism, the notices from Information Commissions often spur the public authorities to redress grievances.

RTI vs Legislations for Non Disclosure of Information

• Some provisions of Indian Evidence Act (Sections 123, 124, and 162) provide to hold the disclosure of documents.
• Under these provisions, head of department may refuse to provide information on affairs of state and only swearing that it is a state secret will entitle not to disclose the information.
• In a similar manner no public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence.
• The Atomic Energy Act, 1912 provides that it shall be an offence to disclose information restricted by the Central Government.
• The Central Civil Services Act provides a government servant not to communicate or part with any official documents except in accordance with a general or special order of government.
• The Official Secrets Act, 1923 provides that any government official can mark a document as confidential so as to prevent its publication.

RTI vs Right to Privacy

• Conceptually, RTI and the right to privacy are both complementary as well as in conflict to each other.
• While RTI increases access to information, the right to privacy protects it instead.
• At the same time they both function, as citizen rights safeguarding liberty, against state’s overreach.

When the question of harmonising the contradicting rights arises, it should

• Give justice to the larger public interest
• Advance the public morality

RTI vs OSA

The OSA was enacted in 1923 by the British to keep certain kinds of information confidential, including, but not always limited to, information involving the affairs of state, diplomacy, national security, espionage, and other state secrets.

• Whenever there is a conflict between the two laws, the provisions of the RTI Act override those of the OSA.
• Section 22 of the RTI Act states that its provisions will have effect notwithstanding anything that is inconsistent with them in the OSA.
• Similarly, under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, a public authority may allow access to information covered under the OSA, “if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest”.

RTI and Political Parties

Why activists want political parties to be brought under RTI?

• To contain corruption
• Huge donations from corporates which lead to favouritism or crony capitalism
• Illegal foreign contribution
• The leader of the opposition is statutorily mandated to be part of the select committees to choose Chairperson for CIC, Lokpal, CBI Director and CVC
• Various members of the opposition are also part of various parliamentary committees
• They enjoy multiple benefits like concessional office spaces, free airtime on DD & AIR from govt

Stand of Political Parties

• PP’s are not public authorities, hence cannot be brought under RTI Act.
• Disclosed information can be misused.
• Can disclose financial information under the IT Act.

Recent Amendments

• The RTI amendment Bill 2013 removes political parties from the ambit of the definition of public authorities and hence from the purview of the RTI Act.
• The draft provision 2017 which provides for closure of case in case of death of applicant can lead to more attacks on the lives of whistleblowers.
• The proposed RTI Amendment Act 2018 is aimed at giving the Centre the power to fix the tenures and salaries of state and central information commissioners, which are statutorily protected under the RTI Act. The move will dilute the autonomy and independence of CIC.
• The Act proposes to replace the fixed 5 year tenure to as much prescribed by government.

Other Issues

• Information commissioners do not have adequate authorities to enforce the RTI Act.
• In case of award of compensation to activist by public authority as ordered by commision, compliance cannot be secured.
• Poor record-keeping practices
• Lack of adequate infrastructure and staff for running information commissions
• Dilution of supplementary laws like the whistleblowers protection Act.

Conclusion

The Right to Information Act was made to achieve social justice, transparency and to make accountable government but this act has not achieved its full objectives due to some impediments created due to systematic failures.

As observed by Delhi High Court that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with; otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act".

It is well recognized that right to information is necessary, but not sufficient, to improve governance. A lot more needs to be done to usher in accountability in governance, including protection of whistleblowers, decentralization of power and fusion of authority with accountability at all levels.

This law provides us a priceless opportunity to redesign the processes of governance, particularly at the grass roots level where the citizens’ interface is maximum.