Fundamental rights themselves have no fixed content; most of them are empty vessels

into which each generation must pour its content in the light of its experiences.

This statement has been stated in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in para
no. 1776 and Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India. The interpretation of the
line is that the RTI was not initially part of any fundamental right but with the passage of time,
bacuase of the socieatal change and development in the legal structure of the nation, it got
added to the Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution i.e part of the freedom of speech and
expressionby many famous supreme court judgements.

(elaborate kar denaa… isko… bcz meine isko apne mann se interpret kiya hai…wahaa jaisa jaise dimag kaam
kare gaa waise isko badha Chadha kr likhna hogaaa….. and then uske baad neeche se same as it is ratt kr likhna
hai)

The Right to Information Act of 2005

The RTI Act replaced the Freedom of Information Act 2002.

The RTI Act mandates that any Indian citizen is free to seek any information from any public
or government authority and the authority is under liability to respond to such a request within
a period of 30 days from the date of receiving such an application.

Right to Information brings accessibility to the administration. The affairs of the state become
transparent when documents are accessible by public eyes. With transparency, rampant
corruption can be questioned and reduced. It also helps in rectifying public policies with the
help of feedback provided by the people as these policies are made for the ultimate welfare of
these people.

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

All constitutional authorities, agencies, owned and controlled, also those organizations which
are substantially financed by the government comes under the purview of the act. The act also
mandates public authorities of union government or state government, to provide timely
response to the citizens’ request for information.
The act also imposes penalties if the authorities delay in responding to the citizen in the
stipulated time.

Right to Freedom of speech and expression

 Article 19(1)(a) states that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and
expression.
 This means that every citizen has the freedom to openly express their thoughts and
opinions.
 This includes not just spoken words, but also written words, photographs, videos,
banners, and other forms of communication.
 The right to speak includes the right to remain silent.
 This right is solely available to Indian citizens, not to foreign nationals.
 The Supreme Court of India has ruled that sports participation is a form of self-
expression and thus a type of freedom of speech.
 This right is not absolute, and it allows the government to enact laws that
impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of India's sovereignty and integrity,
the state's security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency,
and morality, as well as contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.
 The Right to Information (RTI) is a basic right, according to this interpretation.
 The Supreme Court has also declared that freedom of expression is an intrinsic right that
goes hand in hand with the right to life (Article 21). These two rights are not mutually
exclusive.
 Commercial and artistic speech and expression are included in this freedom.

If RTI is a fundamental right, then why do we need an Act to give us this right?
This is because if you went to any Government Department and told the officer there, “RTI is
my fundamental right, and that I am the master of this country. Therefore, please show me all
your files”, he would not do that. In all probability, he would throw you out of his room.
Therefore, we need a machinery or a process through which we can exercise this fundamental
right. Right to Information Act 2005, which became effective on 13thOctober 2005, provides
that machinery. Therefore, Right to Information Act does not give us any new right. It simply
lays down the process on how to apply for information, where to apply, how much fees etc
 Legal Case Laws relating to RTI as part of Article 21(1)(a)
Right To Information as A Fundamental Right: Supreme Court on The Right To Information.
The right to information is a fundamental right flowing from Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
is now a well-settled proposition. Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in
favour of the citizen’s right to know. The nature of this right and the relevant restrictions
thereto, has been discussed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases:

The development of the right to information as a part of the Constitutional Law of the country
started with petitions of the press to the Supreme Court for enforcement of certain logistical
implications of the right to freedom of speech and expression such as challenging
governmental orders for control of newsprint, bans on distribution of papers, etc. It was
through these cases that the concept of the public’s right to know developed.

1. The landmark case in freedom of the press in India was Bennett Coleman and
Co. v. Union of India,
Fact-
Restriction was initially imposed on newspaper control order of 1972-3. Issued under
the Essential Commodities Act 1955. Newsprint was scarce commodity and therefore
its distr1bution was rationed

It was contended that Newsprint Control Order imposed unreasonable restrictions on

the freedom of the press. lt was also argued that the restriction on the press implied
restriction on the readers, who could not read newspapers of their choice.
held
The majoriry judgment held that the impugned order did not merely violate the right
of the newspapers to publish, which was inherent in the freedom of the press, but also
violated the right of readers to information, which was included within their right to
freedom of speech and expression. The right to information was held to be included
within the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a).

2. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain,

Fact-
Raj Narain had contested the 1971 Indian general election against Indira Gandhi, who
represented the constituency of Rae Bareilly in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of
the Indian Parliament. Gandhi was re-elected from Rae Bareilly by a two-to-one margin
of the popular vote, and her Indian National Congress (R) party won a sweeping majority
in the Indian Parliament. Narain filed a petition to appeal the verdict, alleging that Indira
Gandhi used bribery, government machinery and resources to gain an unfair advantage
in contesting the election. Narain specifically charged Gandhi of using government
employees as election agents and of organising campaign activities in the constituency
while still on the payroll of the government.
Held-
the Court explicitly stated that it is not in the interest of the public to ‘cover with
a veil of secrecy the common routine business - the responsibility of officials to
explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and
corruption.’

3. SP Gupta v. Union of India,

Fact
The SC examined how judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are
appointed under Article 124(2) and Arucle 217(1) of the Constitution,
respectively. In order to determine whether requisite consultation tor the
appointments has taken place, it is necessary for the Court to examine the relevant
papers, including correspondence between the Chiet Justice of India and the
Government.

Held
the right of the people to know about every public act, and the details of every
public transaction undertaken by public functionaries was described.

4. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms,

In this case, Association for Democratic Reforms had filed a petition with the
Delhi High Court to pressure authorities to implement certain
recommendations stipulating ways to make the electoral process more
transparent, fair, and equitable.
The High Court of Delhi held that voters had the right to receive relevant
intormation about the histories of candidates who stood tor elections. Indian
politics has,
very often, been marked by the election of individuals with legally questionable pasts.
Therefore, one way of taking care of this problem is informing voters of the
criminal record of the candidates. Right to information for voters is, thus, essential
for healthy and transparent elections.
After the Union of India filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, it ordered the Election
Commission to formulate necessary orders to require all candidates to furnish
information on the following aspects of their background:

Criminal charges and convictions

Pending cases where the candidate is an accused
All assets including those of her spouse
All liabilities
Educational qualifications

Citing Section 8(1)(j), the Court also stated that any information which will not be
denied to the Parliament or the State Legislature should not be denied to any
person.

The court held that it is the duty of Election Commission to keep voters informed of
the pasts of the candidates. It therefore could direct the candidates filing
nominations for elections to furnish details of their assets, liabilities, past criminal
cases, whether ending in acquittals or convictions, and pending criminal
prosecutions.
the Supreme Court of India recognized that the right to know about electoral
candidates falls within the right to information available under the right to freedom
of speech and expression described in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union Of India

Fact-
The People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) challenged the validity of Section 33B of
the Representation of People Act, 1951. Section 33B provided that, notwithstanding a
judgment or order of the court or Election Commission, an electoral candidate is not
bound to disclose any information apart from that required under the Act.
Held-
the court held that exposure to public scrutiny is one of the known means for
getting clean and less polluted persons to govern the country.

6. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs uoi

Fact
In this case, the petitioners were companies, employees and shareholders who
were engaged in the publication of newspapers. Initially, the newsprint enjoyed
the benefit of not being covered under custom duty. But the Government of India,
issued a notification under the Customs Act, 1962[1]with effect from 1st March,
1981. The petitioners argued that by imposing such duty on the newsprint, it would
affect the price of the newspaper and its circulation and which infringed the
freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19(1)(a)
Held
“ The basic purpose of freedom of speech and expression is that all members
should be able to form their beliefs and communicate them freely to others. In
sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people’s right to know.”

The power of taxing should not contravene with the freedom of speech and
expression granted under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the
limitation on flexibility should also be covered within the reasonable limits.
7. State of U.P Vs. Raj Narain.
Fact-

 Mr. Raj Narain filed an election petition in which he alleged misuse of public funds by a
political party that fraudulently used the finances to re-elect the Prime Minister of India.
 The petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner Raj Narain asked
the Government of U.P. to produce the Blue Book, which contained the guidelines for the
safety of the Prime Minister when he/she travels.
 The High Court of Allahabad ruled that the Blue Book did not certify the conditions
underlying Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states that no one can
give any singular evidence which derives from unpublished sensitive official records
which relate to the affairs of the State.
 The High Court of Allahabad ordered that the Blue Book need to be produced, as the
non-production of the document will jeopardize public interest, and gave the verdict in
favor of Mr. Raj Narain.
 After the verdict of the Allahabad High Court, the Uttar Pradesh State Government
appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Held-

 The Supreme Court of India was of the opinion that the meaning of Section 123 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, revolved around the principle of preventing public injury. The
judges stated that for any document which can affect public policy and further
developments, the court should have complete access to the documents involved.
 They stated that if the government doesn’t claim timely privilege in any affidavit, then
they haven’t fulfilled their obligation as per Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
 The decision made sure that when the amount of public interest affected by non-
disclosure outlasts the amount of public interest affected by disclosure; the Court had
every right to demand the production of the documents.

 The Supreme Court of India instructed that, under Section 162 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, any kind of objection to procuring a particular governmental document, should
be put forth and filed on the date of production of the document, as in that case, the court
can decide the extent and validity of the objection.
 The Supreme Court of India held the decision of the Allahabad High court to be valid and
stated that the role of the judiciary is to decide if a document is favorable to the public
interest.

8. Kuldip Nayar v. UOI11 Y.K. Sabharwal,

Held- Secrecy becomes a source of corruption - Sunlight and transparency have the
capacity to remove it.

9. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, vs. Subhash chandra Agarwal,

High Court of Delhi held that :The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and
information so given by CJI of the assets in public information. Declaration of
assets by the SC Judges, is 'information u/s 2(f) of the Act and the contents of asset
declaration are to be treated as personal information, and may be accessed in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 8(1)(j). Lastly, the CJI, if
he deems appropriate, may in consultation with the Supreme Court Judges, evolve
uniform standards, devising the nature of information, relevant formats, and if
required, the periodicity of the declaration to be made. The Delhi HC directed that
the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, shall release the information sought by the
respondent of the declaration of assets.