Article

Right to Information Indian Journal of Public

Administration
Act, 2005 in India: 63(2) 228–251
© 2017 IIPA
SAGE Publications
A Decadal Experience sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0019556117699737
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ipa

B. S. Ghuman1
Mohammad Sohail2

Abstract
Right to Information (RTI) Act emerged as a powerful instrument for taming
corruption in the functioning of public authorities by promoting transparency
and accountability. The Act has completed ten years but the challenges hinder-
ing the successful implementation of the Act are still looming large. The Act is
slowly moving away from its goal owing to many factors, such as lack of aware-
ness, improper maintenance of records, poor compliance to public disclosure of
information mentioned under Section 4 of the Act, inconvenient fee depositing
mechanism, lack of sustained training mechanism for employees, misuse of the
Act, pendency of appeals before Information Commissions and lack of legisla-
tive measures for protection of whistleblowers. For making the Act a success,
it is essential to conduct massive awareness campaigns for citizens, to maintain
proper official records for facilitating provision of information under the Act,
ensuring suo motu disclosure of information mentioned under Section 4 of the
Act, use of information and communication technology in the implementation of
the Act, making available convenient fee depositing options, conducting training
programmes for officials involved in the implementation of the Act, and, finally,
enacting a strong whistleblowers’ protection Act.

Keywords
Right to Information, transparency, accountability, corruption, rights-based
approach

1
Professor, Department of Public Administration and Former Dean Faculty of Arts, Panjab University,
Chandigarh, Panjab, India.
2
Department of Public Administration, Panjab University, Chandigarh, Panjab, India.

Corresponding author:
B. S. Ghuman, Professor, Department of Public Administration, Arts Block III, First Floor, Panjab
University, Sector 14, Chandigarh 160014, India.
E-mail: ghumanbs@pu.ac.in
Ghuman and Sohail 229

Rationale for Right to Information Act, 2005

The policies and programmes of the government aimed at achieving socio-
economic development often fail to yield expected outcome due to mismanage-
ment, corruption and lack of transparency (Chand, 2006; Roberts, 2010). The
marginalised and disadvantaged strata of society especially the rural poor who lack
voice are the worst hit by the transmission losses which occur in the implementation
of development programmes. The onus for this situation is on the Indian bureaucracy
which continued its British legacy of being secretive in nature (Roberts, 2010).
The culture of secrecy embedded in the Indian bureaucracy has its roots in the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which prohibits the sharing of evidence from unpub-
lished official public records without the permission of the head of the Department
who enjoyed utmost discretion in this regard. The Official Secrets Act (OSA) of
1923 was another major legal enactment which further perpetuated the culture of
secrecy and confidentiality in the working of bureaucracy. Official Secrets Act
deals with matters relating to secrecy and confidentiality in the working of the
government. The enactment of the Act made confidentiality and secrecy norms in
the working of public organisations and disclosure of information became excep-
tion. The Shourie Committee on Right to Information and Transparency, 1997,
while discussing the impact of OSA on the working of administration, states, ‘It is
the Official Secrets Act that has been regarded in many quarters as being primar-
ily responsible for the excessive secrecy in government. Its “catch-all” nature has
invited sustained criticism and demand for its amendment. Section 5 of this Act
provides for punishment for unauthorised disclosure of official secrets but omits
to define secrets’ (Government of India, 2006, p. 10). The norms of secrecy and
confidentiality in the administration were further strengthened by Civil Service
Conduct Rules, 1964, and Manual of Office Procedure. Both prohibit the sharing
of any official document to anyone without authorisation (Government of India,
2006). All these developments are indeed responsible for enshrining the culture
of secrecy and confidentiality in the day-to-day functioning of the government
thereby curbing the sharing of information. The predominance of secrecy syn-
drome has been misused by the managers of government for maximisation of
their personal interests under the garb of public interest and led to widespread
corruption. In this backdrop, civil society, judiciary, citizens and media employed
concerted efforts for making the functioning of government transparent and
accountable through promotion of easy access to information available with the
authorities.
Access to information empowers the citizens, especially the poor, to demand
their rights thereby leading to their welfare (Ashraf, 2008; Government of India,
2006; The Hindu, 2013c). When records and documents of public organisations
are available to public, it brings transparency in the system. By fixing somebody’s
responsibility to provide the desired information further promotes accountability
and responsiveness. Twining of transparency and effective accountability curbs
the menace of corruption and make public decisions fair and just.
In India, Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is rooted in Fundamental
Rights, namely, freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) and Right
230 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

to Life and Personal Liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Act empowers
the citizens with a right to seek information kept by public authorities, and they
barring few exceptions have to provide the information.
The states in India took lead in enacting RTI Acts before the Centre could
do it. Before RTI Act, 2005, states like Tamil Nadu, Goa, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi had
already enacted similar Acts; however, these Acts were found to be weak (Singh,
2011; Banisar, 2006).
The article is organised into eight sections. The first section deals with objec-
tives and methodology of the study. The second section contains theoretical
framework and the philosophy of RTI Act. Various features of RTI Act, 2005, are
presented in the third section of the article. Performance of RTI Act in India is
examined in the fourth section. An attempt is made in the fifth section to check the
compliance of public authorities as well as Information Commissions to various
obligations of the Act. The sixth section of the article discusses some important
institutions which have played pivotal role in the implementation of the Act.
Stumbling blocks and challenges are described in the seventh section. The eighth
section provides policy prescriptions for improving the performance of RTI Act,
2005, in India.

Objectives
The RTI, 2005, completed ten years in 2015. The objective of the article is to
assess the decadal performance of the Act, audit the compliance of public authori-
ties and Information Commissions to various obligations prescribed in the Act,
identify stumbling blocks and mitigate the same by suggesting policy prescrip-
tions based upon national and international experiences.
While assessing the performance of the Act, the article focuses mainly on three
aspects, namely: (i) growth parameters of RTI; (ii) the role of RTI in promo-
tion of transparency, accountability and taming corruption in the functioning of
public authorities; and (iii) the compliance by public authorities and Information
Commissions to various obligations envisaged in the Act.

Theoretical Framework and the Philosophy of RTI

The thrust of classical model of governance patterned on Weberian model of
bureaucracy is to promote the culture of secrecy and discourage sharing of infor-
mation. It creates information asymmetry between administration and citizens.
During the last five decades, the social science work and especially public admin-
istration, political science, economics and management works, have provided
alternative models of governance. Literature on New Rights School of thought
including Public Choice theory and the Chicago School, a Competitive Public
Administration and Reinventing Government has documented both theory and
practices of emerging models of public administration (Ghuman, 2012).
Ghuman and Sohail 231

These alternative models comprise New Public Management and Entre-

preneurial Government. These models not only promote efficiency and economy
in administration but also intend to make governance transparent, responsive,
accountable, and citizen-friendly. In this context, a host of citizen-centric admin-
istrative innovations have been introduced. These innovations include, the RTI;
Citizens’ Charters; e-governance; simplification of procedures to reduce time and
cost in the delivery of services; decentralisation; establishing regulatory authori-
ties/commissions; and recently Right to Service Acts in the states. RTI, 2005,
is one of such initiatives intending to promote citizen-centric and good govern-
ance more explicitly in the form of promotion of transparency, accountability and
curbing corruption (Ghuman, 2012).
The underlying philosophy of RTI Act, 2005, which ought to make the working
of public authorities transparent, is rooted in the modern liberal democratic
theory. The political theorists and the supporters of modern liberal democratic
theory perceive transparency (openness) along with accessible government as
well as informed citizenry as the indispensable parts of democracy and also view
transparency as an essential ingredient of functional liberal democracy (Fenster,
2006, 2015). According to Fenster, political theorists, economists and philoso-
phers such as John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy
Bentham, Immanuel Kant, John Rawls and Friedrick Hayek through their works
have explicitly and implicitly advocated transparency in government functioning
as essential ingredient of liberal democratic theory which is in tune with modern
Western political values. The proponents of transparency advance two merits of
transparency. First, transparency makes the government more democratic, and,
second, transparent governments operate in an effective and efficient manner and
hence serve the citizens better (Fenster, 2006). These theorists have opined that
publicity of government laws and actions facilitates citizens in making informed
rational choices and informed citizens initiating and participating in public
debates. Among these thinkers, the liberal philosophers who discern a kind of
contractual relationship between citizens and government express that open-
ness in the government leads to informed citizenry resulting in informed consent
issued by them to the government (Fenster, 2006).
The works of two thinkers, namely, John Rawls and Friedrick Hayek, deserve
special mention in regards to role of transparency in the working of the gov-
ernment. Rawls’s proposition of ‘Original Position’ in his A Theory of Justice
(1971), acknowledges publicity as one of the pillars of a just society due to its
importance in helping citizens making a rational choice in an informed manner
(Fenster, 2006). ‘Original Position’ is one of the revealing features of Rawls’s
concept of ‘Justice as Fairness’ in his work1 The ‘Original Position’ describes a
situation, where people are free, equal and rational and are concerned to decide
upon the nature of principles through which they will be governed.2 While quoting
Rawls, Fenster opines, ‘The individual’s choice must be informed for the thought
experiment of the original position to be meaningful’. Similarly, Rawls’s political
liberalism requires that free and equal citizens fully understand and scrutinise
society’s institutions rather than misconceive the political order due to ‘acciden-
tal or established delusions, or other mistaken beliefs resting on the deceptive
232 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

appearances of institutions that mislead us as to how they work’(Fenster, 2006). Thus,

Rawls’ advocacy for transparency in the government constitutes one of the major
arguments under liberal democratic theory.
Fredrick Hayek, a political economist and philosopher, viewed the use of exist-
ing knowledge a political important aspect of constructing a rational economic
order (Hayek, 1945). While endorsing the significance of utilising accessible and
requisite knowledge, Hayek opines, ‘If we possess all the relevant information, if
we can start out from a given system of preferences and if we command complete
knowledge of available means, the problem which remains is purely of logic’.
Gillespie, while embarking on Hayek’s views expressed in his work The Road
to Serfdom has highlighted the importance of transparent rules in making people
able to plan. Gillespie opines, ‘A government in all its actions is bound by rules
fixed and announced beforehand—the rules which make it possible to see with a
fair degree of certainty how the authorities will use its coercive powers in given
circumstances, and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowl-
edge’ (Gillespie, 2006). Thus, transparency also helps in prediction while plan-
ning. Hayek has also opined that economics of information does affect market and
accountability (Hildreth, 2005).
Fenster (2006), while highlighting the aspect of transparency in the works
of Rawls and Hayek, succinctly sums up, ‘Indeed, formal notions of the rule of
law, whether they emphasise a Rawlsian just state or a Hayekian minimalist, one
requires self-enacting, publicly accessible, and comprehensible legislation that
limits and confines all exercise of public authority, and that facilitates the private
ordering of individual behavior as a result’.
The rights-based legislation (RTI) which promotes transparency in the
functioning of public authorities also derives its theoretical strength from rights-
based approach to development. The ‘rights-based approach’ (RBA) emerged as
a new development paradigm in the late 1990s (Kindornay, Ron & Carpenter,
2012). According to Kapoor and Duvvury, rights-based approach to development
has five major features. First, it is based on a framework of rights and obligations.
Second, it takes into consideration the whole range of civil, cultural, economic,
political and social rights. Third, it establishes a healthy relationship between
transparency and rights-based approach as it locates transparency and account-
ability in the framework of rights-based approach because of its emphasis on
raising the level of transparency and accountability in the development process.
RBA identifies rights-holders and their claims and corresponding duty-bearers
and their obligations. For ensuring accountability and transparency, the RBA
also promotes the creation of such laws, policies, institutions, administrative pro-
cedures, practices and mechanisms which are necessary for realisation of entitle-
ments and respond to the violation of rights (Kapur & Duvvury, 2008). Thus,
the RTI Act, 2005, is also considered as an outcome of rights-based approach to
development. The other two features of RBA are a high degree of participation
and focus on problems of discrimination, equality, equity and vulnerability.
Ghuman and Sohail 233

RTI, 2005: Select Features

Right to Information Act, 2005, received Presidential assent on 15 June 2005
and came into force from 12 October 2005. The Act ensures universal access to
information held by the public authorities pertaining to any period, in any form, in
the official language. The Act includes inspection of records, works and taking
certified samples of material and is applicable to all public authorities and bodies
substantially funded by the government.
The cost for accessing the information is as low as `10 and no fee is charged
in case person belongs to below poverty line.
According to the Act, it is not necessary that applicant should give reasons for
requesting information but Public Information Officers have to justify reasons
for rejection of the request. The Act ensures time-bound delivery of information
within thirty days of receipt of request. However, information concerning the life
and liberty is to be provided within 48 hours. The Act in Section 8 mentions
certain exemptions with regard to the disclosure of information.
The institutional mechanism under RTI Act includes setting up of Public
Information Officer (PIO) for providing information sought under RTI and
Appellate Authority for redressing the grievances of complainants relating to
the Act. Institutions, namely Central Information Commission (CIC) and State
Information Commission are set up at the centre and state levels, respectively, to
oversee the implementation of RTI Act; hear the grievances of citizens and redress
them and impose penalty on errant officials.
The procedure for seeking information under RTI Act is simple and easy.
The applicant only needs to write an application with details pertaining to the
information being sought. The process of getting information under the Act is
shown in Figure 1.
The Act places certain obligations on public authorities and information com-
missions, compliance of which is important for the successful implementation of
the Act (see Figure 2).
The obligations of public authorities include:
1. records management (Section 4[1][a]),
2. proactive disclosure of information (Section 4[1][b], [c]],
3. dissemination of information (Section 4[2], [3], [4])
4. designation of information officers (Section 5),
5. implementation of decisions of the information commissions (Section
19[7] subject to writs) and
6. management information systems and annual returns (Section 25[2]).
The obligations of the information commissions are to

1. receive and enquire into complaints (Section 18[1]),

2. give notice of decisions, including any right of appeal, to the complainant
and the public authority [Section 19(9)],
3. decide on appeals in accordance with procedure (Section 19[10]) and
4. prepare a report on the implementation of the provisions of the Act (Section
25[1]; Shreyaskar, 2013)
234 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

Figure 1. Flowchart of the Process Involved in Getting Information under the Act
Source: Government of India (2006).

Performance of RTI in India

The RTI Act is a watershed legislation (Public Affairs Centre, 2009) which has the
potential to revolutionise the working of public organisations. The RTI Act is a
powerful tool in the hands of citizens to make public organisations transparent,
accountable and corruption-free as the Act places records and performance of
public authorities open to public scrutiny (Centre for Good Governance, 2009;
Government of India, 2006; Kejriwal, 2006; Kulkarni, 2008; Roberts, 2010;
Shreyaskar, 2013, 2014; Singh, 2011).
While assessing the performance of the Act, the article focuses on mainly
three aspects, namely, (i) growth parameters of RTI; (ii) analysing the role of
Figure 2. Framework of Compliance
Source: Shreyaskar (2013).
236 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

RTI in promotion of transparency, accountability and taming corruption in the

functioning of public authorities and (iii) compliance by public authorities and
Information Commission to various obligations envisaged in the Act.

Growth Parameters of RTI

RTI has been experiencing phenomenal growth overtime. The number of public
authorities listed/registered with CIC’s database has increased from 938 in the
year 2005–2006 to 2,030 in the year 2014–2015 with the number falling from
2012 to 2013 onwards. Number of public authorities, which submitted annual
returns relating to RTI, has increased from 837 in 2005–2006 to 1,651 in 2013–
2014 but their percentage has come down from 89.23 per cent in 2005–2006 to
72.54 per cent in 2013–2014 and further improved to 75.27 per cent in 2014–
2015. Number of RTI applications has experienced phenomenal increase between
2005–2006 and 2014–2015. The number of applications was 24,436 in 2005–
2006 and rose to 845,032 in the year 2014–2015 thus registering 35 times increase.
Another positive development in the field of RTI is that the rejection rate of the
application has come down from 13.9 per cent in 2005–2006 to 8.39 per cent in
2014–2015. Disciplinary action taken against officers in respect of the administra-
tion of RTI Act has followed an erratic trend. The number of cases was 2 in 2005–
2006 which increased to 432 in the year 2010–2011, came down to 28 in the year
2011–2012, again rose to 502 in the year 2012–2013 and drastically fell to just 8
and 4 in the years 2013–2014 and 2014–2015, respectively. Total amount of fees,
additional charges and penalty levied have shown continuous increase over the
period. For example, the amount was `509,000 in the year 2005–2006 which
increased to `10.5 million in 2014–2015 (see Table 1).

Promotion of Transparency, Accountability and Taming

of Corruption
A decade-long experience of RTI suggests that the Act has also worked as a mech-
anism to promote transparency, accountability and taming of corruption in the
public organisations.
The implementation of the Act has resulted in making the organisational pro-
cesses public thus bringing the desired openness and transparency in the working
of public organisations. Section 4(1)(b) of the Act makes it mandatory for the
public authorities to furnish 17 kinds of information in a manner which can facili-
tate the provision of information under the Act. The information is to be updated
regularly and public authorities need to ensure that these records are accessible to
people across the country. The performance of authorities on account of disclosure
of information is mixed as cases of non-compliance to this provision are high-
lighted by studies (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009; Roberts, 2010; Shreyaskar,
2013; The Tribune, 2016).
The various provisions of the Act instill the element of accountability in
the functioning of public authorities. Appointing officials responsible for the
Table 1. Growth Parameters of RTI

Year 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015
Total number 938 1,412 1,597 1,770 1,847 2,149 2,314 2,333 2,276 2,030
of public
authorities
listed/registered
Number 837 1,168 1,382 1,528 1,427 1,452 1,593 1,864 1,651 1,528
of public (89.23) (82.72) (86.54) (86.33) (77.26) (67.5) (68.8) (79.9) (72.54) (75.27)
authorities who
submitted annual
return (%)
Total number 24,436 183,424 287,187 362,520 626,748 437,744 705,976 886,681 962,630 845,032
of requests
received
Total number 3,387 15,388 18,966 23,954 34,057 21,413 52,313 62,231 60,127 63,351
of rejected (13.9) (9) (7.20) (7.26) (6.43) (5.1) (8.3) (7.7) (7.21) (8.39)
requests (%)
Total number 2 7 20 9 35 432 28 502 8 4
of cases where
disciplinary
action was taken
Total amount of 508,749 3,071,167 4,356,782 5,539,162 8,548,568 8,086,216 10,059,199 12,030,964 11,406,379 10,507,823
fees, additional
charges and
penalty levied
(in `)
Source: Data compiled from Annual Reports of the years from 2007–2008 to 2014–2015 of CIC.
238 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

disclosure of information, defining their roles and responsibilities have worked as

strong mechanisms to ensure accountability of public organisations (Rani, 2012;
Rodrigues, 2006). The provision of penalty to be levied on errant officials in case
of non-adherence to the provisions of the Act also keeps a check on officials
following the stipulated rules and regulations.
The experience shows that the kind of information sought through applications
filed under the Act also promote the culture of accountability in the functioning
of public authorities. For example, a study titled, RTI in Practice: Mapping its
Effectiveness in Urban Slums of Delhi has revealed that the applicants through
RTI have asked for information regarding the reason for not making available
information relating to admission of students in schools under Economically
Weaker Section (EWS). It suggests non-compliance with the order of the CIC
on dissemination of information with reference to admission under EWS quota
and its mandatory disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act. The applicants have
also sought information about the reasons of non-compliance to certain obliga-
tions by Fair Price Shops (FPSs) under the PDS (Public Distribution System)
Control Order 2001. These examples clearly suggest that RTI has emerged as a
tool utilised by citizens to ensure accountability. The success of RTI as a tool to
ensure accountability is evident through high percentage of people (78 per cent)
confirming that they were able to extract the desired information through RTI
(Rani, 2012).
It has been found that since the inception of the Act, RTI has been mostly
used in areas where citizens find it difficult to get what they are entitled to. Most
of the RTI applications were filed to correct the faults existing due to rampant
corruption in service delivery process of the social sector programmes, especially
the development programme (Centre for Good Governance, 2009). One such
example is the flagship programme, namely, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (Menon & Nigam, 2011). For example, before the
enactment of the RTI Act, the information relating to muster rolls was not avail-
able in public domain, which had encouraged corruption by middlemen. RTI
has helped in reducing corruption in the form of making muster rolls available
online (The Hindu, 2014). Filing applications under RTI in many incidences have
resulted in disclosure of information including decision-making processes relat-
ing to file noting, cabinet papers, records of recruitment and promotion of staff,
documents pertaining to tender processes and procurement procedure, lists of
beneficiaries of government subsidised schemes, such as food grains supplied
through ration shops, water and electricity, domestic gas, educational and health
facilities, shelter for poor and muster rolls under employment guarantee schemes.
The disclosure of information in these cases has highlighted the incidences of
corruption (Simi, Sharma & Cheriyan, 2010). The RTI filed in Commonwealth
Games and 2G scams further demonstrated the significant contribution of the Act
in showcasing instances of corruption (The Hindu, 2012).
Ghuman and Sohail 239

Compliance to Obligations by Public Authorities

Section 4(1)(a) of the Act states that a public authority needs ‘to maintain all its
records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates the
Right to Information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate
to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of
resources, computerised (digitalised) and connected through a network all over
the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated’. Full
conformity to this Section is yet to be achieved and digitalisation, management
and well-keeping of office records remains major challenge in the successful
implementation of the Act and also for providing information within the pre-
scribed time-limit (Government of India, 2006; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009;
Shreyaskar, 2013). One of the surveys has revealed that 38 per cent of the PIOs
observed that delay in replying to an RTI application is mainly due to mismanage-
ment of records and 79 per cent of the PIOs adhered to reason of collecting infor-
mation from the field for delay (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009; Shreyaskar,
2013). The mismanagement of records has also led to the cost escalation. The
Second Administrative Reforms Commission’s report titled, Right to Information:
Master Key to Good Governance has narrated a case study of a poor farmer who
asked about the information relating to paddy field purchases in his area and was
asked to pay `182,000 for availing the information. The charges included expenses
on photocopying the official documents which filled the whole room.
Proactive disclosure of information is the revealing feature of the Act for
making the public authorities transparent. Under Section 4(1)(b), 17 types of
information should be readily available. Section 4(2) of the Act makes disclosure
of these types of information on suo motu basis. The empirical evidence suggests
that the public authorities at centre, state and local levels have yet not ensured full
compliance to disclosure of 17 kinds of information on suo motu basis (Centre
for Good Governance, 2009; CHRI, 2009; Government of India, 2006; Kulkarni,
2008; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009; RTI Assessment & Analysis Group [RaaG]
and National Campaign for People’s Right to Information [NCPRI], 2009;
Robert, 2010; Shreyaskar, 2013; The Hindustan Times, 2012). There are organi-
sations like Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), National
Security Council Secretariat (NSCS), Aviation Research Centre that have not pro-
vided to CIC even simple data relating to number of RTI applications received
and rejected. The organisations continue to work under the veil of secrecy
(The Times of India, 2015a) and it clearly illustrates that even after the completion
of ten years of the Act, the performance of public authorities about the disclosure
of information under Section 4 remains far from being fully satisfactory. Even if
the information does exist the access to information is problematic. Public author-
ities have also failed to use the effective option of information and communica-
tion technology for making information readily available (Government of India,
2006; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009; Robert, 2010; Shreyaskar, 2013). It is rel-
evant to mention here that Section 4(3) also promotes easy access to information.
Compliance to designation of information officers under Section 5 is found to
be satisfactory. Information Commissions’ decisions affect the working of public
240 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

authorities in a big way. The examples of decisions like asking Union Public
Service Commission to show marks to civil services aspirants and directing Delhi
Government to inform the complainants about the timeframe to redress their
grievances (Simi et al., 2010) show the impact of decisions on the working of
Public authorities. However, it is found that in many instances Public authorities
have failed to implement the decision of Information Commission. Recent case
of political parties denying the order of CIC to be considered as Public authori-
ties has been widely debated (Burman, 2013; Sastry, 2015; The Hindu, 2013b).
The case is pending before the Supreme Court. There are other instances such as
Sumitra Devi vs Women and Child Development Department, GNCTD, Delhi3;
Shri Anil Kumar Chopra vs Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)4 and
case of Shri Bhupinder Kumar5 where Public authorities have not acceded to the
decision of CIC. Notwithstanding the Information Commissions have penal-
ised the errant officials for not complying with the orders, the full compliance to
decisions of the Commissions is still lacking. It is relevant to mention here
that public authorities are bound to implement the decisions of Information
Commissions under Section 19(7) of the Act.
Section 4(2), (3), (4) relates to dissemination of information under Section 4(1)
in a cost effective manner through various means of communication including
internet. Dissemination of information through website is one of the most cost
effective ways. But it has been found that as on September 2012, out of a total of
2,336 public authorities, 779 did not have website addresses. Moreover, 779 did
not have even web pages with updated RTI manuals (Shreyaskar, 2013).
The public authorities as mentioned in Section 25(2) of the Act are responsi-
ble for sending annual returns relating to RTI to the Information Commissions.
Table 1 shows that not all public authorities comply with this provision. Moreover,
the percentage of registered public authorities complying with this provision has
experienced fluctuating trend.

Compliance to Obligations by Information Commissions

Under Section 18(1) of the Act, Information Commission receives and enquires
into complaints mentioned under Section 18(1)(a)–(f). The performance of the
CIC in compliance to this obligation for the last five years is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that the disposal percentage of complaints/appeals of CIC per
year from year 2009–2010 to 2013–2014 remains more than 80 per cent except
in the year 2011–2012 (68.13 per cent). Annual Report 2013–2014 of the CIC
reveals that every year around 15 per cent or more cases are left indisposed
adding to the cumulative pendency of the cases. According to a recent esti-
mate the number of cases pending for disposal as on 27 October 2015, is 34,382
(The Hindu, 2015b). The post of Chief Information Commissioner remained vacant
for around ten months and this has also led to the increase in the pendency of cases.
The recent issue of increasing number of appeals being rejected by the CIC
is also under scrutiny. The Hindu on 28 October 2015, reported the number of
appeals taken up by the CIC from September 2014 to June 2015 varied from
2,500 to 3,500 per month. The same number has fallen to only 119 in the month
Ghuman and Sohail 241

Table 2. Performance of CIC in Receiving and Disposing Complaints

Disposal
Percentage Average Annual
Number of Number of (Disposal/ Disposal by Individual
Year Registration Disposal Receipt) × 100 ICs/CIC
2009–2010 22,800 19,482 85.44 2,165
2010–2011 28,875 24,071 83.36 2,675
2011–2012 33,922 23,112 68.13 3,852
2012–2013 28,801 24,550 85.24 2,889
2013–2014 20,438 20,147 98.58 2,747, taking in to
account the
incumbency of the
commissioners who
were in position at
different periods.
Source: Central Information Commission (2014).

of September 2015 and around 218 in October 2015. It does not indicate that
less number of people are approaching CIC but more appeals are being turned
down by the CIC. Moreover, the CIC has not maintained the record of number of
appeals turned down or rejected and the reason for rejecting the appeals. The inci-
dents also question the transparency in the working of CIC (The Hindu, 2015b).
Another criticism of CIC came in the wake of a report published in The Economic
Times on 19 November 2015 suggesting that CIC has not opened around ten thou-
sands envelopes containing appeals since August 2015. This is another method
used by CIC for not letting the pendency of appeals to escalate (The Economic
Times, 2015, November 19).
Section 19(9) provides that the Commission should communicate its decision
to complainant and public authority including any right to appeal. It is evident
from the various case studies (Saxena, 2009) that Commission does communicate
its decisions to the stakeholders.
Section 19(10) of the Act envisages that Information Commissions while
deciding cases should stick to such procedures as may be prescribed under the Act.
In practice, this connotes that Information Commissions and/or the government
nodal agencies for administering the Act need to develop rules stating procedure
of filing and processing of an appeal (CHRI, 2006). The central government has
come up with the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2005 detailing the procedure of
filing and processing of an appeal. However, the provisions were found to be very
basic in nature and explained little to the information seeker about Commission’s
approach in processing the cases. In January 2006, the CIC made a request to the
nodal agency for implementing rules, namely, the Department of Personnel and
Training to make an amendment in the rules for empowering the Chief Information
Commissioner to ‘exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things for
setting up the procedures for hearing the appeals, the complaints received and
for internal functioning of the Commission’ (CHRI, 2006). The Department of
Personnel and Training have come up on the 31 July 2012, with RTI Rules, 2012,
242 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

superseding the earlier existing ‘the Central Information Commission (Appeal

Procedure) Rules, 2005’ and ‘the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and
Cost) Rules, 2005’.6
Under Section 25(1) of the Act, the Commission is bound to prepare an annual
report every year. It is clear from the CIC’s website that the Commission has
every year prepared and published its annual report. All the yearly reports are
available at Commission’s website. However, compliance to this provision by
State Information Commissions is a source of worry. Perusal of websites of State
Information Commissions reveals that not all have uploaded annual reports on
their websites. Not all annual reports are available in both English and Hindi lan-
guage. In some cases, reports in Hindi are not in readable form.

Role of Important Institutions in the

Implementation of RTI
Three institutions, namely, civil society, media and judiciary have been playing a
pivotal role in the implementation of the RTI Act.

Role of Civil Society

In India, the people’s movement for making access to information a rights-based
approach started with the efforts of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a
non-governmental organization (NGO) of peasants and workers in Rajasthan set
up in 1990. The MKSS organised a long series of Jan Sunwais or Public Hearings
to showcase instances of corruption in development expenditure in their villages
in the form of ghost entries in muster rolls of famine relief and wide discrepancies
in records entered in official documents relating to school rooms, wells dug,
building a small path bridge, roads repaired and loan extended to the poor for self-
employment (Mishra, 2003). Another major development was formation of
National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) in 1996 which in
principle demanded enactment of the RTI Act, an Act to make access to informa-
tion a citizens’ right. Around eight year down the line, finally the RTI Act saw the
light of the day in June 2005 as the Act got President’s assent and was imple-
mented in October 2005 (Singh, 2011).
The civil society organisations also contributed in the form of generating
awareness among the citizens through dissemination workshops, conducting
capacity building programmes for the officials, undertaking assessment of the
Act, providing assistance to citizens in drafting RTI applications, using the RTI
Act as a tool to curb corruption (Paul, 2007; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009) and
ensuring that the benefits of the various development programmes reach the tar-
geted population (Martini, 2014). For example, a Delhi based NGO through RTI
has enquired about availability of seats in schools for students belonging to poor
strata and eligibility criteria, in order to support poor families to gain access to
public schools (Dokeniya, 2013; Martini, 2014). Another NGO in Odisha namely,
Soochana Adhikar Manch by using the tool of RTI has helped citizens in getting
their land allotted (Dokeniya, 2013).
Ghuman and Sohail 243

State-wise RTI applications, in addition to other factors, are largely influenced

by the existence of NGOs. Data from 19 states suggests a very high correlation
(0.64, significant at one per cent level) between RTI applications and number of
NGOs.

Role of Media
The role of media in the implementation of RTI Act is also considered positive as
media from time to time has highlighted issues concerning the implementation of
RTI Act (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009; The Hindu, 2013c). Persons from media
have acted as users of RTI Act and as well as watchdogs for monitoring and evalu-
ating the impact assessment of the Act (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009). Media
have used RTI for unearthing instances of corruption. According to an estimate,
4–5 per cent of cases in news media unveiling corruption are based on informa-
tion retrieved through RTI applications and this percentage is expected to increase
(Rao, 2013).

Role of Judiciary
Role of judiciary in the implementation of RTI is exceptionally outstanding.
Judiciary’s intervention in the form of court orders has been effective in imple-
menting the Act in spirit and decisions of CIC and State Information Commissions.
From rejecting government’s claim of privilege on the Blue Book, containing the
security instructions for the Prime Minister in Indira Gandhi’s Case, and on
correspondence between the Chief Justice and Law Minister on the appointment
and transfer of judges, to make public the details about the criminal antecedents,
income and assets by the candidate contesting elections,7 Judiciary has made a
remarkable contribution in the implementation of the Act. Decision in cases such
as Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (striking down the ban imposed by the
state government on circulation of the petitioner’s journal), Hamdard Dawakhana
v. Union of India (declared right to information as a part of Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India), State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh (allowing the state
to withhold documents sought under RTI)8 and cases listed in the Compendium of
Supreme Court/High Court Decisions on RTI Act, 2005 brought out by CIC every
year speaks volumes about the role of judiciary in the implementation of the Act.

Stumbling Blocks and Challenges

RTI has emerged as a powerful instrument for taming corruption in public author-
ities by promoting transparency and accountability. The Act has completed
ten years but the challenges hindering the successful implementation of the Act
remains poignant. Public authorities, Information Commissions and all other
agencies involved in the implementation of the Act have failed to learn from their
own experiences.
244 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

Lack of awareness among citizens remains one of the major stumbling blocks
in the successful implementation of the Act (Abbas, 2015; Centre for Good
Governance, 2009; Government of India, 2006; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009;
Roberts, 2010; RTI Assessment and Advocacy Group and Samya-Centre for
Equity Studies, 2014; RaaG & NCPRI, 2009; Society for Participatory Research
in Asia, 2007; Centre for Good Governance, 2009; PricewaterhouseCoopers,
2009; Simi et al., 2010; Trapnell & Lemieux, 2014). Further, it is not only that
there exists a lack of information among citizens but also the skewed pattern of
awareness among citizens varies across gender, location (rural–urban) and caste
groups. Males, urbanites and general category people are more aware about the
Act. A study carried out in five states, namely, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh, Odisha and Assam brings out that only 12 per cent of women against 26
per cent of men were aware about the Act. Only 13 per cent rural people were
aware about the Act whereas in urban areas 33 per cent people knew the Act.
The percentage of people who were aware about the Act belonging to General
Category was 27 per cent and in case of OBC/ST/ST the awareness was as low as
14 per cent (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009). Similar findings have been repeated
by another survey (RaaG & NCPRI, 2009). Lack of information as a major con-
straint was confirmed by other studies as well (RTI Assessment and Advocacy
Group and Samya-Centre for Equity Studies, 2014; RaaG & NCPRI, 2009;
Simi et al., 2010; Roberts, 2010; Trapnell & Lemieux, 2014). The lack of aware-
ness is also accompanied by poor quality of awareness of citizens about most of
the provisions under the Act (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009). Filing of RTI has
also experienced rural–urban divide. According to one estimate, only 14 per cent
of the RTI applicants filed till 2012–2013 came from rural areas. The number of
women filing RTI also found to be miserably low (The Tribune, 2016).
The Act under Section 26(2) makes it obligatory on the part of appropriate
government to publish user guides containing information relating to procedure
of filing RTI application. But the experience shows that the authorities have failed
to comply with this provision. The non-availability of user guides constrains the
citizens from reaping the benefits of the Act (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009).
Adopting a standardised format for filing an application, however, is not
necessary under the Act but helps in delivering the information in a better way
(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009). Some states like Maharashtra and Odisha have
developed standardised format for filing an application but the recent report of the
Committee to evolve model format for RTI replies have not supported the idea of
having a standardised format (Government of India, 2013; 2014).
Section 6(1) of the Act states that a person can make a request in writing or
through electronic means. The trend shows that filing application through elec-
tronic mode which is cost-effective and saves time is discouraged in practice.
Filing application directly at the PIO office dominates the practice followed by
via post. Filing application through email constitutes a meagre portion of the total
applications (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009). The government has introduced
online mechanism for filling RTI but it has covered only Department of Personnel
and Training (DoPT; The Hindu, 2013a). Provision of online filing of RTI needs
to be ensured in all the Public authorities. The Supreme Court on 3 November
Ghuman and Sohail 245

2014, while responding to a plea has asked the central and state governments to
take necessary decisions for setting up of a mechanism to provide information
under the RTI Act through ‘electronic’ means (The Times of India, 2014).
Fee payment mechanism is also inconvenient as citizens sometimes have to go
outside the concerned state to pay the fee. In a case of Odisha fee was deposited
only through treasury challans and bankers cheques. The easy option of deposit-
ing fee through postal orders was not available in states like Maharashtra, Odisha
and Andhra Pradesh (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009). Inconvenient fee deposit-
ing mechanisms have also led to cost escalation. Depositing fee through demand
draft is normally followed in practice. The fee is `10 but usually `30–35 are
paid for making demand draft thus increasing the cost of filling an application.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission has also taken notice of this
cost escalating practice (Government of India, 2006). Multiple visits paid by citi-
zens in lieu of filing an application also make the process costly. Another issue is
that applicants are forced to deposit the required fee at the head office of public
authorities. The recent incidents of Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) accept-
ing the fee only at its head office supports the argument. The State Information
Commission took cognizance of the matter and directed the NMC to accept the
fee at its zonal offices as well (The Times of India, 2015b, 2015c).
As mentioned earlier, mostly the information seekers file RTI application
at PIO office. The findings show that even then the display boards containing
relevant information are not displayed at all the PIO offices and if displayed they
carry insufficient information (CHRI, 2009; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009).
Citizens also face challenges like lack of assistance provided in filing the applica-
tion as envisaged in the Act under Section 5(3). Non-friendly and hostile attitude of
the PIOs towards the citizens remains a major challenge (PricewaterhouseCoopers,
2009). Quality of information provided is found to be unsatisfactory as most of
the citizens were not satisfied with the quality of information on account of being
incomplete and irrelevant (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009).
Nevertheless, the Act tends to bring a perceptible shift from the culture of
secrecy to norms of openness and transparency in the working of public authori-
ties. However, a radical mental and attitudinal change in the working of public
authorities is thus a necessity for making the Act a game changer. The review of
literature suggests that unfortunately neither the staff is trained to work in tandem
with the provision of the Act, nor any significant attempts have been made to bring
those attitudinal changes (Government of India, 2006; PricewaterhouseCoopers,
2009).
On the other hand, issues of frivolous complaints filed show the misuse of the
Act by the citizens. The filing of frivolous applications and appeals not only devi-
ates the resources of the public authorities but is also against the basic purpose of
the Act. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission thereby recommended
‘The PIO may refuse a request for information if the request is manifestly friv-
olous or vexatious. Provided that such a refusal shall be communicated within
fifteen days of receipt of application, with the prior approval of the appellate
authority. Provided further that all such refusals shall stand transferred to CIC/
SIC, as the case may be and the CIC/SIC shall dispose the case as if it is an
246 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act’ (Government of India, 2006, p. 48).
The recommendation has been partially accepted by the government. But another
challenge relating to this recommendation remains that it is hard to decide the fri-
volity of an application/appeal and public authorities may misuse it (Singh, 2006).
Huge backlog of appeals pending with the State Commissions, non-availability
of basic infrastructure and lack of strong monitoring and evaluation mechanism
have played havoc with the implementation of the Act (Roberts, 2010; Chaudhury,
2011; The Times of India, 2010).
Appointment of bureaucrats as information commissioners has also taken
a toll over the expected outcomes of the Act as they were found to be lenient
towards PIOs (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009; Roberts, 2010). Seeking informa-
tion under RTI has not been always smooth. Many people have paid heavy price,
even loss of lives, for seeking information under RTI Act. Commonwealth Human
Rights Initiative (CHRI) has found out that since the implementation of the Act
till December 2013, around 251 people in India were attacked, murdered, physi-
cally or mentally harassed or had their property damaged because of the nature of
information they sought under RTI. The data include thirty-two alleged murders
and two cases of suicides which had direct connection with RTI applications filed
(The Times of India, 2013). Another estimate has suggested that the number of
RTI activists killed is to the tune of forty-five (The Tribune, 2015). The absence
of a strong legislation to protect RTI activists can hamper and discourage the use
of RTI in making instances of corruption public. The Whistleblowers Protection
Act, 2011, which aims to provide protection to whistleblowers got President’s
assent in May 2014 but never came into force due to pending amendments.
The recent move of the government in the form of introducing Whistleblowers
Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015, will have a strong bearing on the implemen-
tation of the RTI Act. The Bill has been criticised for lessening the scope of infor-
mation to be disclosed under the Act by whistleblowers as whistleblowers—either
public servants, non-profit organizations or individuals—will not be allowed to
reveal any documents classified under the OSA of 1923, even if the purpose is to
disclose acts of corruption, misuse of power or criminal activities. This is in addi-
tion to the clause of any information that could ‘prejudicially affect the interest of
the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign State’. The proposed amendments allow whistleblowers to disclose
some kinds of information only if it has been obtained through a RTI query9 (The
Hindu, 2015a).

Policy Prescriptions
Awareness among citizens holds the key to making RTI a success. The massive
awareness campaigns by the government in collaboration with civil society and
media are essential for improving awareness of citizens relating to various provi-
sions of the Act. Advertisements in major national and regional newspapers and
TV channels can help in a big way in making people aware of the benefits of the
Act. Conducting street plays in remote areas and organising workshops for
Ghuman and Sohail 247

citizens on RTI Act would definitely improve the awareness level of citizens.
Besides improving the awareness, people need to be educated about not to misuse
the Act or file frivolous applications under the RTI Act. This move will not only
lessen the burden on public authorities but also make the use of Act more
impactful.
With a view to promptly supplying quality information, the process of digitali-
sation of official records is mandatory for the successful implementation of the
Act and quality of information largely depends on it. The compliance of Section 4
of the Act should be regularly monitored. Needless to mention that if the records
are well maintained and easily accessible, relevant, precise and intelligent infor-
mation can be provided to information seeker in an expeditious manner. The PIOs
and public authorities need to be more vigilant and careful in this regard. Use
of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in managing the records
deserves special mention. Use of ICT will make the record keeping exercise more
efficient. Provision of additional funds and basic infrastructure will harness the
capacity of public authorities in records management.
Change in mindset and attitude of officials involved in implementation of the
Act holds the key to foster transparency and openness in the working of the public
authorities. Capacity building of officials through sustained training efforts is
necessary for bringing desirable changes in the mindset of the officials. Capacity
buildings programmes also need to impart knowledge of various provisions of the
Act to officials as knowledge of officials regarding various provisions of the Act
is found insufficient.
The process of seeking information under RTI needs to be made more citizens-
friendly. Ensuring availability of user guides can help citizens a long way to know
about the process of seeking information under the Act. When a citizen visits PIO
office for filing an RTI application, placement of display boards containing details
of PIO and other relevant details such as procedure to file an appeal will facilitate
the citizens in seeking information. Creation of Citizen Service Centres to provide
assistance in filing an application will significantly aid the citizens in reaping the
benefits under the Act. Making available more options for fee deposit preferably
like payment through credit/debit cards will simplify the fee deposit mechanism
and citizens will not have to shed more money from their pockets.
Compliance to various provisions of the Act like active disclosure under
Section 4, adoption of management information system and sending of annual
returns under Section 25(2) by public authorities play a pivotal role in success of
the Act and need to be implemented expeditiously.
Many people have sacrificed their lives for unearthing the cases of corruption.
The government is yet to implement Whistleblower Protection Law. A strong law
is needed to protect the whistleblowers who are utilising the tool of RTI for high-
lighting issues of corruption.
An effective monitoring mechanism is a prerequisite for ensuring successful
implementation of the Act. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission rec-
ommended that Information Commissions should be entrusted with this respon-
sibility. The recommendation has been accepted by the government. Information
Commissions should play a proactive role through regular monitoring for ensur-
ing the compliance of the Act by the public authorities.
248 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

The institutions of civil society and media have positively participated in the
formulation of the Act. Their role in the implementation needs to be strength-
ened by appointing persons of eminence and integrity as information commis-
sioners from civil society organisations and media. This move will encourage
these institutions to be more proactive towards the implementation of the Act.
Moreover, the move will make the composition of the information commissions
more broad-based.

Notes
1. Retrieved 1 June 2015, from http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_
A_2013_001589_T_151420.pdf
2. Retrieved 1 June 2015, from http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/FAAD_31102013_01.pdf
3. Retrieved 1 June 2015, from http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/FAAD_18062014_01.pdf
4. Retrieved 1 June 2015, from http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Notifications/RTIRules2012.pdf
5. Retrieved 1 June 2015, from http://judicialreforms.org/judicial-accountability/558-
right-to-information-and-judiciary-right-to-information-and-the-judiciary-by-
prashant-bhushan.html
6. Retrieved  1  June  2015,  from  http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/
57390/13/13_chapter% 206.pdf
7. Retrieved 1 June 2015, from http://scroll.in/article/727173/if-amendments-to-whistle
blowers-act-are-passed-there-may-be-no-one-left-to-protect

References
Abbas, H. (2015, October 26). RTI still has miles to go. The Indian Express. Retrieved 18 June
2016, from http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/rti-still-has-miles-to-go/
Ashraf, T. (2008). Empowering people through information: A case study of India’s right
to information act. The International Information & Library Review, 40(3), 148–152.
Banisar, D. (2006). Freedom of information around the world. London: Privacy
International.
Burman, Anirudh. (2013). Transparency and political parties: Finding the right instrument.
Economic and Political Weekly, 48(28), 34–37.
Central Information Commission. (2008). Annual report, 2007–08. New Delhi: Central
Information Commission.
———. (2009). Annual report, 2008–09. New Delhi: Central Information Commission.
———. (2010). Annual report, 2009–10. New Delhi: Central Information Commission.
———. (2011). Annual report, 2010–11. New Delhi: Central Information Commission.
———. (2012). Annual report, 2011–12. New Delhi: Central Information Commission.
——— (2013). Annual report, 2012–13. New Delhi: Central Information Commission.
———. (2014). Annual report, 2013–14. New Delhi: Central Information Commission.
———. (2015). Annual report, 2014–15. New Delhi: Central Information Commission.
Centre for Good Governance. (2009). Best practices in implementation of the right to
information act (National & International). A compilation for the sub-committee con-
stituted by the central chief information commissioner. Hyderabad: Centre for Good
Governance.
Chand, V. (2006). Reinventing public service delivery in India. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Ghuman and Sohail 249

Chaudhury, S.B.R. (2011). Right to information as a means of mass pursuasion. In

Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury & Ishita Dey (Eds), Sustainability of rights after
globalization. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
CHRI (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative). (2006). Information commissions: Roles
and responsibilities. New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
———. (2009). Compliance with the right to information act: A survey. New Delhi:
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
Dokeniya, A. (2013). Implementing right to information: Lessons from experience.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Fenster, M. (2006). The opacity of transparency. Iowa Law Review, 91, 885–949. Retrieved
from http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=facult
ypub/
———. (2015). Transparency in search of a theory. European Journal of Social Theory,
18(2), 150–167.
Ghuman, B.S. (2012). Right to information in India rhetoric and reality. A Keynote Address
at National Seminar on ‘6 Years of RTI in India: Challenges and Opportunities’ held at
Khalsa College Gardhiwala, Hoshiarpur on 17 March 2012.
Gillespie, J.S. (2006). Transplanting commercial law reforms: Developing a ‘rule of law’
in Vietnam. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Government of India. (2006). Right to information: Master key to good governance.
New Delhi: Second Administrative Reforms Commission.
———. (2013). Guide on the right to information act, 2005—Updated version. New Delhi:
Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pensions.
———. (2014). Report of the committee to evolve model format for RTI replies. New Delhi:
Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions.
Hayek, F.A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review,
35(4), 519–530.
Hildreth, W. Bartley. (2005). Tax transparency. In Joseph J. Cordes, Robert D. Ebel & Jane
G. Gravelle (Eds), The encyclopedia of taxation and tax policy. Washington, D.C.:
The Urban Institute Press.
Kapur, A., & Duvvury, N. (2008). A rights-based approach to realizing the economic and
social rights of poor and marginalized women. Washington, D.C.: International Center
for Research on Women.
Kejriwal, O.P. (2006). Right to information act: Loopholes and road ahead. Economic and
Political Weekly, 41(11), 940–941.
Kindornay, S., Ron, J., & Carpenter, C. (2012). Rights-based approaches to development:
Implications for NGOs. Human Rights Quarterly, 34(2), 472–506.
Kulkarni, A. (2008). Governance and the right to information in Maharashtra. Economic
and Political Weekly, 43(5), 15–17.
Martini, M. (2014). Right to information laws: Impact and implementation. U4 Expert
Answer, 10, 1–10.
Menon, N., & Nigam, A. (2011). Anti-corruption movement and the left. Economic and
Political Weekly, 46(37), 16–18.
Mishra, N. (2003). People’s right to information movement: Lessons from Rajasthan
(Discussion Paper No. 4). New Delhi: Human Development Resource Centre, UNDP.
Paul, S. (2007). Role of civil society organisations in implementation of RTI in India.
CHRI Newsletter, 14(2). Retrieved 15 July 2016, from http://www.humanrightsinitia-
tive.org/publications/nl/newsletter_summer_2007/article12.htm
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2009). Final report: Understanding the key issues and con-
straints in implementation of the RTI act. New Delhi: PricewaterhouseCoopers.
250 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(2)

Public Affairs Centre. (2009). National assessment of the degree of compliance to Suo
Motu disclosure provisions of right to information act, 2005. Bangalore: Public Affairs
Centre.
Rao, B.N. (2013). Good governance: Delivering corruption-free public services.
New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Rani, R. (2012). RTI in practice: Mapping its effectiveness in urban slums of Delhi.
New Delhi: Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India.
Roberts, A. (2010). A great and revolutionary law? The first four years of India’s right to
information act. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 925–933.
Rodrigues, C. (2006). Promoting public accountability in overseas development assis-
tance: Harnessing the right to information. New Delhi, India: Commonwealth Human
Rights Initiative.
RTI Assessment & Analysis Group (RaaG) and National Campaign for People’s Right to
Information (NCPRI). (2009). Safeguarding the right to information: Report of the
people’s RTI assessment 2008. New Delhi: RTI Assessment & Analysis Group (RaaG)
and National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).
RTI Assessment and Advocacy Group and Samya-Centre for Equity Studies. (2014).
Peoples’ monitoring of the RTI regime in India 2011-13. New Delhi: RTI Assessment
and Advocacy Group and Samya-Centre for Equity Studies.
Sastry, T. (2015, March 25). Defying RTI, undermining democracy. The Hindu. Retrieved
15 June 2016, from http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/defying-rti-undermining-
democracy/article7028792.ece
Saxena, P. (2009). Public authority and the RTI. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(16),
13–16.
Shreyaskar, P.K.P. (2013). Investigating compliance of the RTI Act. Economic and Political
Weekly, 48(9), 19–21.
———. (2014). Known and unknown of RTI: Legitimate exemptions or conscious secrecy.
Economic and Political Weekly, 49(24), 32–38.
Simi, T.B., Sharma, M.S., & Cheriyan, G. (2010). Analyzing the right to information act in
India (Briefing Paper No. 1/2010). Jaipur: CUTS International.
Singh, B. (2011, September). Make full use of RTI. The Hindu. Retrieved 15 June 2016, from
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/make-full-use-of-rti/article2442483.ece
Singh, S. (2006). Administrative reforms and right to information. Economic and Political
Weekly, 41(39), 4110–4113.
———. (2011). The genesis and evolution of the right to information regime in India.
In Shekhar Singh, Prashant Sharma, Vikram K. Chand, Stephanie de Chassy, Marcos
Mendiburu, Venkatesh Nayak, et al. (Eds), Transparent governance in South Asia.
New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public Administration.
Society for Participatory Research in Asia. (2007). Tracking right to information in eight
states-2007. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.
The Economic Times. (2015, November 19). Central information commission has not
opened 10,000 RTI envelopes since August-end. The Economic Times. Retrieved
15 June 2016, from http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/
central-information-commission-has-not-opened-10000-rti-envelopes-since-august-
end/articleshow/49837914.cms
The Hindu. (2012, November 5). The power of RTI. The Hindu. Retrieved 15 June 2016,
from  http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/The-power-of-RTI/article12496098.
ece
———. (2013a, April 12). Now, file RTI applications and pay fees online. The Hindu.
Retrieved 30 May 2016, from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/now-file-rti-
applications-and-pay-fees-online/article4610410.ece
Ghuman and Sohail 251

The Hindu. (2013b, June 5). No place to hide. The Hindu. Retrieved 15 June 2016, from
http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/aside-no-place-to-hide/article7039591.
ece
———. (2013c, August 30). Effective implementation of RTI stresses. The Hindu.
Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/
effective-implementation-of-rti-act-stressed/article5074972.ece
———. (2014, August 23). Learning from NREGA. The Hindu. Retrieved 15 June 2016,
from http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/learning-from-nrega/article6342811.ece
———. (2015a, May 16). 10 years after RTI, transparency under cloud. The Hindu.
Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/10-years-
after-rti-transparency-under-cloud/article7213480.ece
———. (2015b, October 28). Info panel turning down more RTI requests now. The Hindu.
Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/info-panel-
turning-down-more-rti-requests-now/article7811504.ece
The Hindustan Times. (2012, November 3). Public authorities failed to comply with RTI
provisions: CIC. The Hindustan Times. Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://www.
hindustantimes.com/delhi/public-authorities-failed-to-comply-with-rti-provisions-cic/
story-W80jxl3xK2DPzkabk733KO.html
The Times of India. (2010, June 6). Study: Former babus stumbling block to RTI imple-
mentation. The Times of India. Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/india/Study-Former-babus-stumbling-block-to-RTI-implementation/
articleshow/6015765.cms?
———. (2013, December 22). Maharashtra tops country in attacks, murder of RTI
activists. The Times of India. Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/india/Maharashtra-tops-country-in-attacks-murder-of-RTI-activists/
articleshow/27743408.cms
———. (2014, November 3). Giving RTI Info the electronic way: SC asks centre, states
to decide. The Times of India. Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/india/Giving-RTI-info-the-electronic-way-SC-asks-Centre-states-to-
decide/articleshow/45024654.cms
———. (2015a, April 7). RAW, IB did not report RTI queries, finds CIC. The Times of
India. Retrieved 15 July 2016, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/
Nagpur-municipal-corporation-directed-to-receive-RTI-charges-at-zone-offices/
articleshow/47020354.cms
———. (2015b, April 23). Nagpur municipal corporation directed to receive RTI charges
at zone offices. The Times of India. Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Nagpur-municipal-corporation-directed-to-receive-RTI-
charges-at-zone-offices/articleshow/47020354.cms
———. (2015c, May 11). Government department spending more on providing RTI Info
than fee charged. The Times of India. Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Government-department-spending-more-on-providing-
RTI-info-than-fee-charged/articleshow/47226670.cms
The Tribune. (2015, October 21). A weapon for justice and equality. Retrieved 15 June 2016,
from  http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/a-weapon-for-justice-equality/
148445.html
———. (2016, July 12). Those assaulting RTI activists must be punished: Vice-Prez.
Retrieved 15 June 2016, from http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/those-assault-
ing-rti-activists-must-be-punished-vice-prez/264680.html
Trapnell, S.E., & Lemieux, V. (2014). Right to information: Identifying drivers of effec-
tiveness in implementation (Right to Information Working Paper Series). Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank.