RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

History

The right to information gained power when Universal Declaration of Human Rights
provided everyone the right to seek, receive, information and ideas through any media which is
mentioned under Art.19 of the same.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights 1966 states that everyone shall have
the right to freedom of expression, the freedom to seek and impart information and ideas of all
kinds.

The right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution. In
1976, in the Raj Narain vs the State of Uttar Pradesh case, the Supreme Court ruled that Right
to information will be treated as a fundamental right under article 19. The Supreme Court held
that in Indian democracy, people are the masters and they have the right to know about the
working of the government.
Thus the government enacted the Right to Information act in 2005 which provides machinery for
exercising this fundamental right.
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.
SCHEME OF THE ACT
The Act is divided into six chapters and two schedules.
Chapter I : Deals with preliminary aspects, definitions, scope and extent of the Act.
Chapter II : Deals with the right to information and obligations of public
authorities.
Chapters III & IV: Deals with constitution of the Central Information Commission and the State
Information Commission. Chapter V : Deals with appeals and penalties.
Chapter VI : Deals with Miscellaneous aspects.
Objectives of the RTI Act

1. Empower citizens to question the government.

2. The act promotes transparency and accountability in the working of the government.
3. The act also helps in containing corruption in the government and work for the people in
a better way.
4. The act envisages building better-informed citizens who would keep necessary vigil
about the functioning of the government machinery.

What type of information can be requested through RTI?

The citizens can seek any information from the government authorities that the government can
disclose to the parliament.
Some information that can affect the sovereignty and the integrity of India is exempted from the
purview of RTI.
Information relating to internal security, relations with foreign countries, intellectual property
rights (IPR), cabinet discussions are exempted from RTI.

RTI: WHO IS NOT COVERED?

Intelligence Bureau, Research & Analysis Wing, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic
Intelligence Bureau, Department of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre,
Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Special Service Bureau, Assam Rifles, Special Branch
(CID) Andaman & Nicobar, Crime Branch (CID) Dadra And Nagar Havelli, Special Branch Lakshaweep
Police…….list is expanding.

However no exemption –in matters relating to human rights violations and corruption, Information can
be given only if concerned IC approves-Time limit 45 days
Important provisions under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or KEY FEAUTERS (from
bare act)

 Section 2(h): Public authorities mean all authorities and bodies under the union
government, state government or local bodies. The civil societies that are substantially
funded, directly or indirectly, by the public funds also fall within the ambit of RTI.
 Section 4 1(b): Government has to maintain and proactively disclose information.
 Section 6: Prescribes a simple procedure for securing information.
 Section 7: Prescribes a time frame for providing information(s) by PIOs.
 Section 8: Only minimum information exempted from disclosure.
 Section 8 (1) mentions exemptions against furnishing information under the RTI Act.
 Section 8 (2) provides for disclosure of information exempted under the Official Secrets
Act, 1923 if the larger public interest is served.
 Section 19: Two-tier mechanism for appeal.
 Section 20: Provides penalties in case of failure to provide information on time, incorrect,
incomplete or misleading or distorted information.
 Section 23: Lower courts are barred from entertaining suits or applications. However, the
writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India and high courts under Articles 32 and 226
of the Constitution remains unaffected.

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE 2019 BILL

The 2019 amendment bill amended section 13 and section 16 of the RTI Act, 2005.

1. Firstly, previously the term of office for the Central Chief Information Commissioner
(‘CIC’), the State Information Commissioner (‘SIC’) and Information Commissioner was
fixed to 5 years or until the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. However, the newly
amended bill empowers the Central Government to prescribe the term of office for the
commissioners as it may deem fit to the government.
2. Secondly, the salary was previously identical to the salary of -

Chief Information Commissioner - Chief Election Commissioner (‘CEC’) and

Central Information Commissioner - Election Commissioner
whereas thesalary of the
Chief State Information Commissioner - Election Commissioner at the state level
State Information Commissioners - Chief Secretary of the state.
 The newly amended bill, however, empowers the Central government to prescribe the
salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of, the Chief Information
Commissioner and Information Commissioners and the State Chief Information
Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners.
3. Thirdly, as per the newly amended bill, if Chief Information Commissioner and
Information Commissioners are receiving the pension or any other retirement benefits
from the previous government service, their salaries will be decreased by an amount
equivalent to that pension.

What are the government’s stated grounds for bringing the amendments?
1. The statement of objects says “the mandate of Election Commission of India and Central
and State Information Commissions are different. Hence, their status and service
conditions need to be rationalised accordingly”.
2. The Central Information Commissioner has been given the status of a Supreme Court
judge but his judgments can be challenged in the High Courts. How can that exist?

The objections against the bill are threefold. – HOW IT WEAKENS

 AGAINST THE FEDERALISTIC STRUCTURE OF THE ACT

The 2019 amendment bill came as a jolt to the RTI Act as the bill wipes out the federal
structure of the RTI Act by empowering the government with excessive power of
delegated legislation. The salaries and allowances of the SIC are drawn from the
Consolidated Fund of the respective states over which the Centre has no authority.
Likewise, the definition of term “appropriate government” under the RTI Act read with
the rulemaking power vested in them under Section 27 of the RTI Act empowers the SIC
to adjudicate upon the disputes relating to access to information or of public records held
by the administrative authorities under the jurisdiction of their respective states.

 COMPROMISING THE INDEPENDENCE OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

The new amendment bill has crippled the autonomy and independence of CIC, SIC and
the ICs as they no longer have a fixed salary and a fixed tenure thus making then a puppet
of the Central Government. The new amendment bill has struck at the heart of the
autonomy of ICs by empowering the Central Government to determine the salary and
tenure of these authorities. The present bill has defeated the purpose of parliament behind
 fixing the salaries and tenure of these bodies. The ICs can no longer be fearless in their
approach.

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

CASE LAWS ON SECTION 2(h) – PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

In Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, it was held that where a body is
not merely regulated or supervised by the appropriate government but is rather
“substantially controlled” by it. The body becomes public authority under the RTI Act,
2005.

In Prime Ministers National Relief fund v. Aseem Takyar, it was held that the
satisfaction of Section 2(h)(d)(i) by the fund will bring it within the definition of “public
authority” within the meaning of public authority.

Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd v. State Information Commission. In this case, the
court had observed that since the mere requirement of the RTI Act for an institution to be deemed
a "public authority" is that the Government must substantially finance it, and exercise control
over its affairs, it is not necessary that the Government must be the majority shareholder in that
institution. The Court had further gone ahead to make an observation that whether or not the
government exercises such control is immaterial.

CASE LAWS ON SECTION 8

Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay---

Fiduciary Relationship is defined as one party having confidence in the other party with regards
to his affairs, business, and or transactions. An examining body cannot be in a fiduciary
relationship with reference to students who take the exam. Therefore, there existed no exemption
under the Section, and answer books had to be provided to the student.

R.K. Jain v. Union of India

The Court held that information regarding charges, penalties, or sanctions of an employee and
records of such nature was necessarily a matter between the employee and his employer and the
disclosure of which has no public interest but would result in a threat to the privacy of a person.
The Court also upheld that if the Information Officer or the appellate authority feels that the
public interest is justified the disclosure of such information but the petitioner cannot claim those
details as a matter of right.

Other important case laws-

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)

One of the earliest cases where the Supreme Court emphasized the people’s right to know.

State of UP vs Raj Narain (1975)

One of the prominent instances, when the Supreme Court took cognizance of the public demand
for the right to information, was in this case.

The SC ruled that--- The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything
that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the
particulars of every public transaction in all its bearings

SP Gupta & others vs The President of India and others (1982)

In the year 1982, the Supreme Court in this case held that the right to information was a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Justice Bhagwati rejected the government’s
claim for protection against disclosure under Art. 74(2) of Indian Const and S.123 of Indian
Evidence Act and directed the Union of India to disclose the documents containing the
correspondence.