BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW

ASSIGNMENT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

ON

“SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF RIGHT TO

INFORMATION IN INDIA”

SUBMITTED BY:- SUBMITTED TO:-

UJJVAL GUPTA DR. V.K. PATHAK

ROLL NO. :- 17225BLT066

B.A.LL.B. (HONS.) VI SEM

SESSION- 2019-2020

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents
TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................................................. 2

TABLE OF AUTHORTIES ...................................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 4

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN INDIA .......................... 5

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5

2. IMPORTANT FEATURES OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 .................. 6

3. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXEMPTS THE FOLLOWING

ORGANIZATIONS ............................................................................................................... 6

4. ENACTMENT OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ......................................................... 7

5. SCOPE OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION- .................................................................... 8

I. LINKS BETWEEN RTI AND THE ELEMENTS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE .......... 8

II. PERFORMANCE OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 ..................... 9

III. CORRUPTION: RTI HELPS FIGHT ....................................................................... 10

IV. HEALTH SERVICES ............................................................................................... 11

6. LIMITATIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION: ..................................................... 11

7. NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE BILL: ...................................................................... 13

8. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 14

2
 TABLE OF AUTHORTIES

Indian Caselaws

Bennete Coleman and co versus Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106 ......................................... 7
Manubhai Shah v. Life Insurance Corporation of India AIR 1993 SC 171. ............................. 7
S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149. ....................................................................... 7
Sarbjit Roy v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, Complaint
No.CIC/LS/C/2009/000322. .................................................................................................. 7
Union of India v Rahul Rasgotra……………………………………………………………...12

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors…………………12

Subhash Chandra Aggarwal v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India………………….12

Union Public Service Commission Etc. v. Angesh Kumar & Ors. (Supreme Court, 2018)…..12

Other Authorities

Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Oct. 11, 2019,
13:49 PM) http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/guideonrti.pdf .............................................................. 5
Government of India, Second Administrative Reform Commission, First Report on Right to
Information: Master Key to Good Governance, June 2006, p.1. ........................................... 5
Laxman Gauri, (Oct. 14, 2019, 07:16 AM) https://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/more-
privatisation-cards. ............................................................................................................... 11
Manzra Dutta and Nandita Chauhan, Right to Information and Good Governance, (Oct. 21,
2019, 17:51 PM) https://www.legalindia.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/RTI.pdf ....... 11
Shailash Gandhi (Oct. 11, 2019, 13:49 PM)
http://www.bcasonline.org/policy/Article%20by%20Shailesh%20Gandhi%20for%20Febru
ary%2006.html. ...................................................................................................................... 5
Simran Tandon & Anshu Singh, The Toothless Monster, RTI Amendment Bill, 2019 (Sept. 04,
2019, 12:16 PM)
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/836770/White+Collar+Crime+Fraud/The+Toothless+Mo
nster+RTI+Amendment+Bill+2019..................................................................................... 14

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The importance of research in Academics cannot be emphasized enough. While classroom

teaching helps a student with understanding the fundamental concepts of a subject, research

papers like this push one towards the detailed analysis of particular topics.

The fundamentals of my understanding of this topic were established with the classroom

lectures of Prof. V.K. Pathak at this University. He has since guided me on this topic for which

I am very grateful. I am also grateful to Library Law School, BHU which provided me with

the required support both in the form of books and online database which has been of immense

value to this project.

Finally, I acknowledge the support of my peers, the blessings of my parents and the never

ending grace of the almighty which has been the driving force of everything good in my life

including this research paper.

Ujjval Gupta
17225BLT066

4
 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF RIGHT TO
INFORMATION IN INDIA

1. INTRODUCTION

The right to information is implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. However, with a view to
set out a practical regime for securing information, the Indian Parliament enacted the Right to
Information Act, 2005 and thus gave a powerful tool to the citizens to get information from the
Government as a matter of right. This law is very comprehensive and covers almost all matters
of governance and has the widest possible reach, being applicable to Government at all levels
Union, State and Local as well as recipients of government grants.1

In India, after many deliberations over the years, the RTI Act was passed by the parliament in
October 12, 2005, thus opening up the governance processes of our country to the public The
Right to Information Act is considered to be the most revolutionary of all enactments in
Independent India. The RTI Act, which if used sensibly and efficiently can take the country in
the direction of new democracy and good governance.2

RTI is perceived as a key to strengthen participatory democracy and ushering in people-

centered governance. With access to information on their side, people can function better as an
informed and responsible citizenry - investigating and scrutinizing government actions and
reviewing the performance of their elected representatives with a view to seriously holding
them accountable. People can access information on how officials are delivering on their
commitments, how the bureaucracy is spending public money and how representatives are
interacting with special interest groups. Without good governance, no amount of
developmental schemes can bring in improvement in the quality of life of the citizen 3.Good
governance has four elements transparency, accountability, predictability and participation and
RTI helps in achieving the same.

1
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Oct. 11, 2019, 13:49 PM)
http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/guideonrti.pdf
2
Shailash Gandhi (Oct. 11, 2019, 13:49 PM)
http://www.bcasonline.org/policy/Article%20by%20Shailesh%20Gandhi%20for%20February%2006.html.
3
Government of India, Second Administrative Reform Commission, First Report on Right to Information:
Master Key to Good Governance, June 2006, p.1.

5
 The Act also requires the Government to compile a guide in easily comprehensible form and
to update it from time to time. This would help all the information seekers in getting
information and public information officers in dealing with RTI applications.

2. IMPORTANT FEATURES OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

The following are the important provisions of RTI, 2005 which are as follows -

i. All citizens possess the right to information

ii. Applicant can obtain Information within 30 days from the date of request in a normal case.
iii. Information can be obtained within 48 hours from time of request. If it is a matter of life
or liberty of a person.
iv. Certain information are prohibited.
v. Penalty for refusal to receive an application for information or for not providing
information is Rs. 250/- per day but the total amount of penalty should not exceed Rs.
25,000/-.
vi. Applicants have submitted the application with Rs.10 fee. But application fee is exempted
to the people of Bellow Poverty Line (BPL) SC and ST applicants.
vii. There is no prescribed application to file the RTI application but signature application must
include applicant name and address, required information and name and position of PIO.
viii. Suppose PIO is failed to dispose the RTI application within the stipulated time limit, the
applicant have the right to file first appeal to first appellate authority in the same public
authority.
ix. The first appellate authority is responsible to provide information within 30 days under the
19(1) of the RTI Act.
x. The first appellate authority also failed to provide the required information within time
limit, applicant have right to file second appellate appeal to Information Commission
against the PIO.
The aforesaid mentioned promote transparency in government organisations, makes them
function more objectively thereby enhancing predictability. In a fundamental sense, right to
information is a basic necessity of good governance.

3. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXEMPTS THE FOLLOWING

ORGANIZATIONS

6
Twenty five government organizations are exempted from the purview under the second
schedule of RTI act. These includes intelligence agencies, central economic intelligence bureau
etc, research bodies working with the countries security agencies are also immune to the law,
as are paramilitary forces. The Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics control board, Special
Service Bureau, Special branch of the Police in Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep and
Dadra Nagar Haveri are excluded from RTI act. These organizations are however required to
provide information if the panel believes the appellants query relates to a case of corruption or
abuse of human rights.

4. ENACTMENT OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION

India always took pride in being the largest democracy, but with the passing of the Right to
Information Act 2005, it has also become an accountable, interactive and participatory
democracy. This Act is applicable to the whole nation except the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Concept of Right to Information started taking shape in 1970’s by liberal interpretation by the
judiciary in various Fundamental Rights specially the right to freedom of speech and
expression. In the case of Bennete Coleman and co. v. Union of India in 1973, the majority
opinion of the Supreme Court then put it “Freedom of speech and expression includes within
it compass the right of all citizens to read and be informed.”4 In 1975 during National
Emergency, Supreme Court of India dictate in a case judgement, Information gathering is a
right to every person. The 1981 court judgement in Manubhai Shah v. Life Insurance
Corporation of India5 reaffirmed the point.

The private bodies do not come in the ambit of RTI however in the case Sarbjit Roy vs Delhi
Electricity Regulatory Commission6 the Central Information Commission also reaffirmed that
privatized public utility companies continue to be within the RTI Act- their privatization
notwithstanding. The political bodies are also a form of government bodies hence are
answerable to people under this Act.

4
Bennete Coleman and co versus Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106
5
Manubhai Shah v. Life Insurance Corporation of India AIR 1993 SC 171.
6
Sarbjit Roy v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, Complaint No.CIC/LS/C/2009/000322.

7
 Good governance has four elements- Transparency, Accountability, Predictability and
Participation. Transparency refers to availability of information to the general public and clarity
about functioning of governmental institutions.7

5. SCOPE OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION-

I. LINKS BETWEEN RTI AND THE ELEMENTS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

The Democracy means meaningful participation by the people in the public affairs. A
democratic government must be sensitive to the public opinion for which information must be
sensitive to the public opinion, for which information must be made available to the people.

The Right to Information implies the participation of people in the process of governance and
administration which becomes inevitable. This is most popular, citizen centric and change
oriented law in Indian administrative history. Through this act, the citizens of India have been
empowered to question, audit, review, examine and assess the government acts and decisions
so as to ensure that these are consistent with the principle of public interest, good governance
and justice.

To facilitate the access to information, a citizen has, u/s 2 (j) of the Act, the right to:

i. Inspection of work, documents, records;

ii. Taking notes extracts or certified copies of the documents or records;
iii. Taking certified sample of material;
iv. Obtaining information in electronic form, if available.

Right to Information (RTI) refers to the right of every citizen to access information held by or
under the control of public authorities. Information is crucial for good governance as it reflects
and captures Government activities and processes. If people do not know what is happening in
their society, if the actions of those who rule them are hidden, then they cannot take a
meaningful part in the affairs of the society. Access to information not only promotes openness,
transparency and accountability in administration, but also facilitates active participation of

7
S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.

8
 people in the democratic governance process. The RTI Act is a tool helping to ensure rights
already promised in the constitution.

In India, the Democratic form of government has established which means that the government
has to work according to the “will of the people’. The main focus of the government is to
transform people’s will into their actions and take responsibility for it. This democratic system
only works properly when people become more aware, alert, and conscious and get information
about political agendas, policies, schemes, plans, Yojana, which is introduced by the
government. Right to Information Act, 2005 trying to facilitate the general; public to access
the information regarding government plans. Act provide modus operandi to acquire
information and data related by the public office to affected parties, NGO, co-operation and
the general public with the intention of social welfare.

II. PERFORMANCE OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

Many scholars has said this legislation was not a substitute for good governance, but was
intended “to support and aid the process of good governance”. The passage of RTI Act has up
to a certain extent infused transparency and accountability in the working of public
departments. This has increased the efficiency of decision making process. This has led to
reduction in corruption in the country.

The Transparency International (TI) has reported that perceived corruption in India (a score of
3.5 out of 10) has declined at the rate of about 15-20 per cent per year, due mainly to the
implementation of the RTI Act. The Centre for Media Studies in collaboration with TI has
recently accomplished an all India survey study of the poor below the poverty line. The views
of the poor have been elicited in respect of all the flagship programmes that have been
implemented for alleviation of poverty. At least 40 per cent of the respondents have reported
that corruption has declined. It has also been observed that wherever NGOs are actively
involved in the development activities, the perceived corruption is abysmally low.

The progress of RTI Act has been studied by PRIA (Society for Participatory Research in Asia).
In order to track the progress of RTI Act in 12 states, PRIA decided to conduct a study on a set
of indicators namely the constitution of State Information Commission and its role, role of
Nodal agencies, appointment of PIOs, experience of seeking from PIOs mandatory disclosure
under section IV of RTI Act and role of government in educating people under 26 of the Act.

9
 The study indicated the following results, which are discussed in very brief manner as
following:-

i. The constitution of SIC in some states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal
Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan, the constitution of SIC was delayed by several months.
Inadequate infrastructure and working staff has been provided to the SIC.
ii. There has been a general tendency of non-imposition of penalties on the PIOs who have
indulged in dereliction of duty.
iii. People belonging to rural areas feel that appeal process is very expensive.
iv. Public Information Officers have been appointed in most public authorities in the states.
The process of accessing information by people has started slowly through Right to
Information Act. However, there exits great confusion in definition of public authority.
v. Most of the PIOs at state level and district level are not cooperative and they sometimes
threaten applicants to withdraw applications. PIOs should be given more training so that
they are sensitive to people’s need and PIOs who are guilty of deliberate denial of
information should be penalized.

The RTI had already received judicial recognition as a part to the fundamental right to freedom
of speech and expression.

III. CORRUPTION: RTI HELPS FIGHT

The political mobilization against corruption started with the RTI. The culture of secrecy, as
known, encourages the government officials to indulge in corrupt practices, which result in
lower investments due to misuse of power and diversion of funds for private purposes. As a
result, the government’s social spending yields no worthwhile benefits, because, for instance,
the teachers do not teach, doctors and nurses do not attend health centres, ration card holders
do not receive subsidized food grains and, thus, livelihood support is denied, and the promised
jobs are not provided to the poor, who are assured of income support. In the process, it
perpetuates poverty and harms the poor. It creates an environment of distrust between the
people and the government, which impinge upon the development and jeopardize democratic
governance.

We can ask information about projects and plans. We can inspect files and check for any
misappropriations. The government spends a huge amount of money for development work.
We can ask for information about the work being done in our area. Information relating to

10
 tenders, agreements, payments and estimates of engineering work etc. can be obtained with the
help of the Right to information Act. Besides these, information can be sought on the following-

i. You can demand samples of materials used for the construction of roads, drains and
buildings etc.
ii. You can demand an inspection of any social development work, work in progress or
information related to any completed work.
iii. You can demand an inspection of government documents, maps for the construction,
registers and records.
iv. You can demand information related to the progress made on any complaint filed by you
in the recent past.

Experiences suggest that in the states where the Right to Information Act has been
implemented, it has become an important tool of social development and governance. Tackling
pendency at the Information Commission and stringent punishment to guilty officials as well
as massive awareness campaigns among the masses for proper use of RTI constitute the key to
the success of RTI regime.8

IV. HEALTH SERVICES

RTI has been used to improve health care services. Boru is a small village in Gujarat and the
Primary Heath Centre is 8 km away from the village due to which the villagers were not able
to get timely and desired medical help. Deaths had occurred in the village due to inadequate
medical facilities. They filed an application with the doctor in the Primary Health centre who
was also the PIO on the health facilities provided to the villagers, what they were entitled to
and the duties carried out by the Health worker who was supposed to visit their village three
times a week and administer medicines and vaccinations to children, pregnant women and TB
patients. Once the application was filed the health worker started visiting the village regularly.

6. LIMITATIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION:

8
Manzra Dutta and Nandita Chauhan, Right to Information and Good Governance, (Oct. 21, 2019, 17:51 PM)
https://www.legalindia.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/RTI.pdf

11
 i. Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 primarily deals with the
exceptions to the said conferred right. The usual exemption permitting Government
to withhold access to information is generally in respect of these matters;9
1. International relations,
2. National security,
3. Law enforcement and prevention of crime,
4. Internal discussions of the government,
5. Information forbade to be published by a court or tribunal, or if such disclosure of
information leads to contempt of court.
6. Information which would infringe the privacy of individuals, if disclosed.
7. Information, particularly of a financial nature when disclosed would bestow an unfair
advantage on some person or object or government,
8. Information arising out of a fiduciary relationship,
9. Information about scientific discoveries and invention and improvements, primarily in
the field of
ii. Sec. 9 of the RTI Act states that “any information, whose copyright is not held by
the state, cannot be provided by it under any circumstances”. This exemption under
the RTI Act is an absolute one. It is primarily intended to avert misuse of the right
conferred by the RTI Act by the Governmental agencies, particularly in issues of
infringement of copyright.
iii. Section 24 of the RTI Act states that the intelligence and security organizations
established by the Central and State Governments cannot fall under the purview of
this Act. However, the Section also lays down a proviso which states that “the
allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under
this subsection.”10 This proviso is there to prevent the fundamental aim of the Act
from being violated.
Major Issues:
• The Apex Court in Union of India v Rahul Rasgotra11 observed that confidentiality
of government files and private notes made by public or government authorities and
their claim to withhold the disclosure thereof has to be decided by a Court by examining
the relevant files or notes in camera. Where the Court after reviewing the concerned
files/notes concludes that exemption from discloser is unwarranted, it may reject
government’s claim of immunity. The Court in deciding whether the exemption
claimed by public authority in justified or not, shall apply the test of prejudice that what
the non-disclosure is likely to cause to the public interest.

9
Right To Know And Right To Information by Vikas Kumar and Shashank Manish available at
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l88-Right-To-Information.html
10
Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
11
(1994) 2 SCC 600.

12
 • In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission &
Ors. (Supreme Court, 2012)12, the Apex Court had held that “the details disclosed
by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand
exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless
involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”
• On 17 April 2015, in Subhash Chandra Aggarwal v. Registrar General, Supreme
Court of India, the Apex Court discarded an appeal against the decision of Delhi High
Court which had held that “information about doctor’s visit expenses of judges and
their families couldn’t be revealed.” The Supreme Court stated that the medical
expenses of Judges do not come under the ambit of Right to information.
• In Union Public Service Commission Etc. v. Angesh Kumar & Ors. (Supreme
Court, 2018) the High Court was approached for a direction to the Union Public
Service Commission (UPSC) to disclose the details of marks (raw and scaled) awarded
to them in the Civil Services (Prelims) Examination 2010.
The need for transparency and accountability was weighed keeping in view the necessity of
best possible use of economic resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the
other. It was decided that publishing or disclosing raw marks will cause problems which would
not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public
interest requires the furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a
given fact situation.

7. NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE BILL:

i. It would grant greater powers to the centre as everything will be decided by the
government. Thus, the neutrality of information commissioners would be crippled and
make information commissioners "More Loyal" to the government. They will behave like
the employees of the government and if they so wish, they can decide to withhold
information that can support the government.
ii. The original act had defined terms tenures, salaries, appointment, etc. The amendment is
viewed as the tenure, salaries, appointment to be decided on a case to case basis by the
government.
iii. The proposed amendment diminishes the status of the CIC, SCIC and IC from that of the
Supreme Court Judge and thus, this would lower their authority to issue the directives to
the senior government officers.

12
(2013) 1 SCC 212

13
 iv. The proposed amendment would adversely affect the independence of the CIC, SCIC and
ICs as the Centre will now have the authority to decide the tenure, terms and salaries of
these officials. Thus, this is a threat to independence.
v. The proposed bill was introduced and passed without the public consultation which
hampers the citizens' right to information as a public consultation is necessary for laws to
become successful and drafting of the legislation cannot be left to the elected
representatives alone.
vi. On issues like NPAs, demonetisation, RBI, etc., the information commission got the
government to reveal significant information- something it can do only if it has both
authority and independence.
vii. It appears as an effort to bring the Central Information Commission under the absolute
control of the central government. The CIC and ICs deal with huge vested interests,
especially in the senior bureaucracy. It is important for them to be independent.
viii. This amendment will take away the transparency as it will empower the central
government to unilaterally decide which will fundamentally weaken the whole basic idea
and structure of the RTI.

8. CONCLUSION

The RTI Act, as it stands today, is a strong tool to uphold the spirit of democracy. It has been
used an effective instrument to promote transparency and accountability in administration. It
is a weapon in the hands of citizens of the country to know the functions performed by public
authorities, the purpose of the public transaction said to done in the name of the public act and
the source of finance to discharge such functions. Right to information exists before the
enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005 because it is considered as one of the fundamental
rights within the purview of Article 19(1)(a). This right promote transparency, accountability
in function discharge by public authorities. Although Right to information is considered as
advancement in India it suffers from several drawbacks which need to be revised and improved.

The main aim of the RTI Act, 2005 which was to promote transparency, accountability in the
working of every public authority and the citizens' right to secure the access to information is
being crippled by this amendment bill, 2019. This is an attempt to take away the free flow of

14
unbiased information and place before the general public, the filtered information by the public
authorities in order to please the government. The government has weakened the sunshine law
without providing any credible rationale for bringing an amendment as this will definitely
hamper the independent working of the Information Commissioners. They are now no more
vested with the independence, transparency, status and authority but will now be functioning
as one of the departments answerable ultimately to the central government.

15