SPEECH

TOPIC- LIMITATIONS ON THE SCOPE OF RIGHT TO

INFORMATION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Sir first I will begin with introducing right to information then I will talk
about exemptions and then finally whether rti is being constricted or not
INTRODUCTION
A healthy democracy requires public participation in the formulation and administration of
government policy. Complete information about policy proposals and debate over alternatives
ensure popular consent. Public examination of ongoing programs ensures the government's
accountability1. RTI is a tool for gaining transparency in administration as well as trust of the
public. It helps in creating a virtuous cycle for the governing authority as well as people who are
governed, as increasing transparency will consequently increase faith of the public.

RTI stands for Right to Information. RTI means that citizens can request for information from
state or central government departments and offices. And such request should be processed in a
timely way as mandated by the RTI Act.

ANALYSIS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION

RTI: A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OR NOT?

The term “freedom of speech and expression” in Article 19(1)(a) has been held to include the
right to acquire information and disseminate the same. Thus right to information is a
fundamental rights derived from Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.

Genesis of RTI law started in 1986, through judgment of Supreme Court in L.K. Koolwal v
State of Rajasthan and Ors. case, in which it directed that freedom of speech and expression
provided under Article 19 of the Constitution clearly implies Right to Information, as without
information the freedom of speech and expression cannot be fully used by the citizens2.

IMPACT OF RTI
The enactment of RTI not only inspired a spate of other rights-based laws, but also embedded
transparency and accountability to the people within them

In India, studies and media reports show that RTI is being used by citizens, civil society and the
 media as a remedy to individual injustices, to obtain access to government programmes,
investigate government policy and decision-making, and expose corruption and misuse of public
resources

EXEMPTIONS UNDER RTI ACT, 2005

Sir as we know that no right is absolute and unfettered and therefore while promoting institutional
integrity and transparency, Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 24 of the RTI Act enlist
exemptions/limitations on disclosure of certain information. Essentially, as per the RTI Act such
information is exempt from disclosure which affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country in
a prejudicial manner and also its security, strategic, scientific or economic interests, commercial
confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, information causing breach of privilege of
Parliament or the State Legislature information forbidden to be published by any court of law etc.

The PIO of a public authority can deny the information under Section 8(1)7 of the Act:
However, a PIO may allow access to information to the applicants in spite of the above
exemptions provided in Section 8(1), if public interest in providing the information is greater
than the harm done in private interest. Thus, the PIOs, while dealing with requests for
information must always remember that public interest shall outweigh private interest in the
disclosure of information, and that disclosure of information is the rule and denial of information
is an exception.

RTI BEING CONSTRICTED: A STUDY

In a public welfare law such as the RTI Act, objective of which is to maintain transparency and
openness in governance, the list of information that cannot be disclosed to the public (generally
known as ‘exemptions’) must be minimal, specific and narrowly defined.

The Act provides for limited exemptions, but it relies on better judgment of the Information
Officer, as to whether the information can be provided to the applicant or not. Sometimes the
officials go beyond the exemptions and deny application.

In the case of Reserve Bank of India and Ors. v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors.11 “the Court
weighed between the public interest and fiduciary relationship court held that Since, RTI Act is
enacted to empower the common people, the test to determine limits of Section 8 of RTI Act is
whether giving information to the general public would be detrimental to the economic interests of
the country? To what extent the public should be allowed to get information?

Delhi High Court in the case of, Adesh Kumar v. Union of India & ors.12 respect to the case of
B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer 13 where the authority denied information to the
respondent under section 8(1) (h) and the question before the court was Whether the disclosure of
the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would “impede the
investigation” in terms of Section 8 (1) (h) RTI Act? The court held A public authority which
seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the
nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8 (1) (h) RTI Act, which is the only
provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it
will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought “would impede the
process of investigation.”

The Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay and Ors14 Court has held that indiscriminate and impractical demands or
directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and irrelevant information unrelated to
transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of
corruption, would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the
administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of
collecting and furnishing information.

CONCLUSION

All the aforementioned decisions of courts and commission points to the fact that Information
Officers have been negligent in disposal of their duty. The right conferred upon the citizens by,
the Constitution and the RTI Act, is being diluted by such practices. There is a fine line between
right to information and right to privacy, the former concerns right of public at large; which is
extremely essential to keep public discourse in flow, while the latter concern an individual, and
the PIOs need to be extremely cautious while dealing with RTI requests, so as to strike a balance
between the two rights.