DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

FINAL

DRAFT:
ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW

RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT COMBATING CORRUPTION
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Submitted To:

Submitted By:

Mr. Mahendra Singh Paswan,

Etisha Srivastav

Assistant Professor

VI Semester

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National

Roll No: 51

Law University, Lucknow

Section: A

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to extend my special thanks of gratitude to my Pleading, Drafting and
Conveyance teacher, Mr. Mahendra Singh Paswan who gave me the opportunity to work on
the topic Combating the Leviathan of Corruption by Information: An Analysis.
I would like to thank maam for giving me such an interesting topic to research on and for the
help and guidance which you gave me during the making of my project. It has been a

wonderful experience to work on this project as it has been very knowledgeable to understand
the same.
Secondly, I would like to thank my seniors and friends who helped me a lot in finishing this
project within the limited time.
-ETISHA SRIVASTAV

INDEX

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................4
S. 124 EVIDENCE ACT A PRECURSOR TO THE RTI................................................6
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005: SALIENT FEATURES....................................7
DRAWBACKS OF RTI ACT...............................................................................................10
SOME INSTANCES WHERE RTI WAS USED IN COMBATING CORRUPTION12
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................13
BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................14

INTRODUCTION
Corruption is a multi-faceted and complex phenomenon. The tentacles of corruption are
widespread and deep-rooted and it is prevalent in every aspect of society, be it economic,
political or administrative.1Secrecy in government is the most important cause of corruption,
inefficiency and irresponsiveness and an enemy to fair governance2.
The recent scams involving unimaginably big amounts of money, such as the 2G spectrum
scam, CWG scams, Antrix- Devas deal, etc. are well known. Corruption is an intractable
problem. It can only be controlled, but not totally eliminated. It may not be possible to root
out corruption completely at all levels but it is possible to contain it within tolerable limits.
Corruption has a corrosive impact on our economy. It worsens our image in international
market and leads to loss of overseas opportunities 3. Hence, effective methods need to be
adopted in order to curb corruption, especially at the roots and RTI may prove to be one such
step.
With the passing of the Right of Information Act, a faceless citizen is now blessed with a tool
with the help of which he can now demand from the high and mighty in the government to
know the details of every action they take on behalf of the people. If there is an open
government with means of information available to public, there would be greater exposure
of the functioning of the government and it would help to assure the people of a better and
more efficient administration.4
ree and open access to information to citizens is an essential pre-requisite of democracy. A
democracy process of participatory decision making can be ensured with full transparency
and information sharing. A secretive regime is virtually inefficient because the free flow of
information is essential if problems are to be identified and resolve through participation,
1http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l373-Right-to-Information---An-Anti-CorruptionTool.html
2 SL Goel,Right to Information and Good Governance(2007, Deep and Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd)
17.
3<http://upscportal.com/civilservices/essay/An-Essay-Corruption-in-India> last visited on 12 March
2015
4<http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/iftaa.htm> last visited on 12 March 2015.
4

efficiency and economy. Furthermore, a secretive culture cultivates suspicion and promotes
rent seeking which in turn allows inefficiency to thrive and choke the potential for an
inclusive growth and development apart from incapacititation political institutions by
reducing public confidence in their function and sanctity.
This paradigm shift from secrecy in government functioning to transparency is mainly due to
the force of globalization and e-revolution in the present century which has universally made
the people all over the world more aware and demanding about their right. People no longer
want their governments to work under cloaks of secrecy and especially, the RTI has become
more prominent in almost every country with people demanding their governments to be
more transparent and accountable. In more than four years since its enactment the Act has
thrown open a large number of issues related to its legal significance, process innovation and
implementation challenges. Swajal in its own right also contributed to the movement.
Knowledge has always a great source of strength and power. A well informed citizen who is
armed with knowledge about the functioning of the organization and institutions which serve
public needs is able to draw maximum benefit from the resources. Public participation is also
enhance by knowledge about the system and process which are adopted in the process of
delivering services. "Access to information" acts as a the bedrock of good governance,
transparency accountability and participation.
The Right to Information is one such tool which provides greater transparency in the manner
in which government work is conducted, particularly relating to facilities and service provide
to citizens.
This project will attempt to outline firstly the significance of the right to information,
particularly in empowering ordinary citizens to combat state corruption.

S. 124 EVIDENCE ACT A PRECURSOR TO THE RTI

S. 124 of the Evidence Act was the provision which bolstered the peoples right of
information before the enactment of the RTI Act 2005. It provides that a public officer would
not be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence if he is of
the view that public interests would suffer due to such disclosure.
It is interesting to note here that although S. 124 is worded in a way which prima facie
negates the information part thereof, however if we look at it from another perspective, a
public officer would have to provide any official information which would prove beneficial to
the public interest. Any information related to corrupt practices if withheld would prove
counterproductive to the aforementioned purpose.
In Excelsior Film Exchange v UOI5 the Bombay HC had categorically stated that:
Section 124 of the Evidence Act confers right on the public officers to claim
privilege from disclosure of confidential communications. But before exercising that
right the officer concerned must come to the conclusion that the disclosure of such
document would be detrimental to the public interest. He is the sole judge to decide
that fact but his decision should not be arbitrary or capricious. He should not claim
privilege merely because such disclosure would either advance the case of the
adversary or damage his case. The only relevant consideration which should weigh
with him is that the disclosure of such document would prejudice the public interests.
If he honestly comes to the conclusion that it would adversely prejudice the public
interests, he in exercise of the discretion vested in him should claim privilege from
disclosing such document. But exercise of such privilege should not be abused.
Section 124 of Evidence Act should in no event be resorted to as a cloak to shield the
truth from the Court.6

5 AIR 1968 Bom 322.

6 Id., [6].
6

Thus it can be seen that the right to information existed before the advent of the 2005 Act,
albeit in a restricted form. The law imposes a duty upon public servants that they disclose any
information which would benefit the public at large. This is a sacrosanct duty, compliance
with which would result in corruption being nipped in the bud to a great extent.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005: SALIENT FEATURES

The Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI) provides that any citizen may request
information from a public authority (a body of Government or instrumentality of State)
which is required to reply expeditiously. Information disclosure in India was hitherto
restricted by the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and various other special laws, which the new
RTI Act now relaxes. The formal recognition of a legal right to information in India occurred
more than two decades before legislation was finally enacted, when the Supreme Court of
India ruled in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain7 that the right to information is implicit in the right
to freedom of speech and expression explicitly guaranteed in Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution.
You can seek information about your applications or complaints regarding ration cards,
electricity connections, water connections and so on, pending with the public authorities and
force them to redress your grievances quickly without any need of paying bribes. The Long
title of the Act states that this Act promotes transparency and accountability in the working
of every public authority. Preamble states that the Act:

contains corruption
holds Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed
facilitates informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to
functioning of democracy

Information laws can have a positive impact on different spheres of society: politics, and
public administration.
Democracy revolves around the basic idea of citizens being at the centre of governance8. RTI
forms a crucial aspect of participatory democracy. It is essential to ensure accountability and
7(1975) 4 SCC 428.
7

good governance. The greater the access of the citizen to information, the greater is the
responsiveness of government to community needs. The Right to Information Act, 2005, in
its statement of objectives recognized that democracy requires an informed citizenry and
transparency of information, which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption
and hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed.
RTI is certainly a significant step towards curbing corruption but its application is something
which needs to be looked into and moulded in a way that even the most destitute of persons
can benefit from it.
With the enactment of the RTI, citizens of India have a fundamental right to access
information related to the functioning of their government. The essence of the RTI is that it
enables a citizen to examine, review and assess government actions and decisions to ensure
obedience to public interest, integrity and justice. The Act also establishes the government's
duty to provide that information. Public authorities must not only make access to this
information easy and inexpensive, but must also frequently publish certain information
without solicitation. The RTI includes penalty provisions for authorities who refuse to release
requested information and for those who do not provide it in a timely manner.
Definitions
1. Information
As defined in the RTI of 2005, the term information means any form of material, including
records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, contracts, papers,
samples, logbooks, models, data material in any electronic form and information relating to
any private body that can be reached by the public authority under any law in force at the
time of the request. It is important to note that India's RTI can reach private bodies to a
limited extent, as it applies to all bodies, owned, controlled or substantially financed directly
or indirectly by funds provided by the Government.9 Under this provision, if a private entity
receives financial assistance or subsidies from the government, they may be obligated to
provide information under the law. Furthermore, the public may access information relating
to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the
8<http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rti_dh.htm> last visited on 12 March 2014.
9 Charmaine Rodrigues, Promoting Public Accountability in Overseas Development
Assistance:Harnessing the Right to Information 5, COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS
INITIATIVE, April 2006.
8

time being in force. This means that if a public authority should have obtained information
from a private body, but has not, the public is entitled to have access to that information. In
essence, the public authority's ability to access the document creates a constructive right of
the citizen to access the document under the RTI.
2. Public Authority
Public authority as defined in the Act means any institution of self-government established
by any law, notification, or order made by the appropriate government (federal, state or local)
and also covers "all bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government
and NGOs substantially financed directly or indirectly by the government." This definition of
public authority is similar to the definition of public official included in the 1988 PCA.
Like the PCA definition, the definition of public authority in the RTI is extensive, and is
meant to include not only public officials in the strict sense of the word, but also government
contractors, federally funded agencies, and other organizations which are directly or
indirectly financed by the government. This somewhat broad definition is meant to
encompass a wide range of money handlers, as an attempt to prevent misappropriation of
government funds and combat the widespread corruption epidemic.

DRAWBACKS OF RTI ACT

While RTI critics will admit that the Act is a huge step toward greater transparency and
accountability in India, the Act has been criticized on several grounds.
1.

Lack of publicity

Critics of the law argue that because the Act only provides private citizens with the right to
obtain information, the law will not produce enough results to promote a change in the
political culture. Critics suggest that corruption scandals will remain rampant because:
a) the RTI allocates power to the average citizen and the average citizen lacks the time
and resources to uncover corruption; and
b) public authorities know and exploit the fact that individual private citizens have less
power.
The argument is that Indian citizens lack political clout and confidence in their own
knowledge of the legal system and this inadequacy creates a rift of power and authority, with
the citizen at a disadvantage.
The RTI was enacted in order to expose corruption. The intent of the legislators was not that
all corruption issues would be solved by private citizen inquiries, but that with a culture of
transparency and accountability, the risks associated with corrupt practices would become so
great that corruption would not occur. The debate is whether the RTI as it stands can fulfil its
promise, given that the private citizen is at a disadvantage to the public official in both
knowledge of the system and access to power.
2. Frustrating exemptions
Even if the RTI would otherwise scare politicians with the threat of the democratic process
(i.e. citizens getting involved and promoting change), critics argue that overly-broad
exemptions to the RTI render the Act ineffective in many instances. Critics point to several
exemptions which contain vague language that under liberal interpretation provides public
authorities a shield from the RTI's provisions. Some overly-vague exemptions includeS. 8(1)
(h) which provides an exemption for information that would impede the process or
investigation of offenders which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and
7(9): providing that information will be provided "in the form in which it is sought" unless
doing so would contribute to the diversion of resources of the public authority.
3. Absence of safeguards for whistle-blowers
The last major criticism of the RTI is that the Act lacks a clause protecting whistleblowers
from retaliation by the powerful institutions they are capable of bringing down. India does
not have a statute protecting whistleblowers in any capacity, and critics believe this provides
10

a major disincentive for those with important information about corruption to come forward.
The rationale for protecting whistleblowers according to proponents of an amendment to the
RTI or supplementary legislation is that, in order for potential whistleblowers to feel safe
bringing critical information to the attention of investigators, they should be statutorily
protected. Because the RTI pits individual citizens against powerful companies and political
institutions, critics suggest that amending the statute to protect whistleblowers from harmful
retaliation would encourage inquiries under the Act and ensure the Act's success against
corruption.

SOME INSTANCES WHERE RTI WAS USED IN COMBATING CORRUPTION

11

1. Janawad scam10
In the 1990s, the Janawad Panchayat in Rajsamand district began spending over Rs. 1 cr
annually the highest among the 9000 panchayats in the state. Over 70 per cent of the money
was siphoned off by a corrupt nexus between the Sarpanch and government officials. The
scam was exposed by villagers who used their Right to Information to nab the culprits. Using
their Information rights, over 70 villagers, then collectively demanded the records of their
Panchayat. The Sarpanch was jailed and 13 government officials involved in the scam were
suspended. And annual social audits of Panchayat funds were made mandatory.
2. Use of RTI in NREGA11
Sabarkantha district is one among six districtsin Gujarat that are covered under NREGA.
In Balisana village of its Prantij block, workers got the payment as low as Rs.3 to Rs.7 per
day for their work. Sabar Ekata Manch and Janpath did a fact-finding survey in Prantij block
and similar situations were found in all the works that were done in February and March after
enactment of NREGA. Mr. Natu Barot of Sabar Ekata Manch contacted Mahiti Adhikar
Gujarat Pahel for guidance, about how to acquire muster rolls and payment sheets of the
works. Since this information comes under pro-active disclosure category, he was advised to
just file an application asking the copy of the muster and payment sheets under RTI. When
these muster rolls were studied, it came into light that there were a lot of discrepancies (and
some deliberate wrongful alterations) in the data in these sheets. These irregularities and
violations were brought to the notice of media through press conference. The issue was
highlighted. The pressure hence created over the government was pivotal in correcting these
issues and payment of wages as per minimum wages provisions.

10http://right2information.wordpress.com/category/rti-success-stories/
11http://rti.aidindia.org/content/view/204/93/
12

CONCLUSION
The right to information is expected to improve the quality of decision making by public
authorities, in both policy and administrative matters, by removing unnecessary secrecy
surrounding the decision making process. It would enable groups and individuals to be kept
informed about the functioning of the decision making process as it affects them, and to know
the kinds of criteria that are to be applied by government agencies in making these decisions.
It is hoped that this would enhance the quality of participatory political democracy by giving
all citizens further opportunity to participate in a more full and informed way in the political
process. By securing access to relevant information and knowledge, the citizens would be
enabled to assess government performance and to participate in and influence the process of
government decision-making and policy formulation on any issue of concern to them.
The cumulative impact on control of corruption and the arbitrary exercise of power, of the
availability of such information to the citizen, would be momentous.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
13

Statutes:
Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Books:

Goel S.L., Right to Information and Good Governance, 2007, Deep and Deep
Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Verma R.K., Right to Information-Law and Practice, 2nd edition, 2009, Taxmann
Publication.

Sarkar, Sudipto and VR Manohar, Law of Evidence, 16th edition 2008, Wadhwa
Nagpur.

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 23rd edition 2010, Wadhwa Nagpur.
Article:

Harsh Mander and Abha Joshi,The Movement for Right to Information in

India:Peoples

Power

for

the

Control

of

Corruption<http://www.rtigateway.org.in/Documents/References/English/Reports/12.

%20An%20article%20on%20RTI%20by%20Harsh%20Mander.pdf>
Charmaine Rodrigues, Promoting Public Accountability in Overseas Development
Assistance: Harnessing the Right to Information 5, COMMONWEALTH HUMAN
RIGHTS INITIATIVE, Apr. 2006

14