DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE: RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND ITS RELEVANCE

IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

NAME OF THE FACULTY: DR. P. SRIDEVI

Name of the Candidate: KUMARI SAUMYA

Roll No.2013060 & Semester-VIth

CERTIFICATE

1 | Page

This is to certify that my Project Work entitled RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND ITS
RELEVANCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Submitted by kumari saumya is the record of
work carried out during semester-VI of third Year B.A. LL.B. Course for the academic year
2013-2018 under my Supervision and guidance in conformity with the syllabus prescribed by
Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University.

Place: Visakhapatnam.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2 | Page

Firstly, I would like to thank my Guide and faculty of Admin law, dr. p. sridevi for giving an
opportunity to undertake this work and successfully accomplishing the same.
I would also like to thank her for her valuable guidance and for being a solvency of
inspiration and encouragement enabling the work and to complete the work successful.
Last but not the least I would like to thank all the background supports who have spent their
valuable time to support me throughout my project work.
Place: Visakhapatnam

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 | Page

CHAPTER -I............................................................................................................. 5
1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 5
1.2 SCOPE OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.......................................................6
1.2.1 Private bodies......................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 Political parties....................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER-II............................................................................................................. 7
2.1 PROCESS FOR FILING RTI..............................................................................7
2.2 FEES............................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER-III............................................................................................................ 9
RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROSPECTIVE...........9
CHAPTER IV.......................................................................................................... 13
4.1 EXCLUSIONS............................................................................................... 13
4.2 INFORMATION EXCLUSIONS........................................................................13
CHAPTER V.......................................................................................................... 15
5.1 RELEVANCE OF RTI WITH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.........................................15
CHAPTER VI.......................................................................................................... 16
6.1 IS JUDICIARY UNDER RTI?............................................................................16
6.2CAN OFFICIALS BE PUNISHED IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAW?....17
CHAPTER VII......................................................................................................... 18
7.1 MAKING AN APPEAL.................................................................................... 18
7.1.1 First Appeal to the Appellate Authority.................................................18
7.1.2 Second Appeal to the Information Commission....................................19
7.1.3 Burden of Proof..................................................................................... 20
CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER -I

4 | Page

1.1 INTRODUCTION
At the International level, Right to Information and its aspects find articulation as a human
right in most important basic human rights documents, namely, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At regional levels, there are numerous
other human rights documents, which include this fundamental right for example, the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the
American Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights,
etc. The Commonwealth has also formulated principles on freedom of information.
The Indian Parliament had enacted the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 in order to
promote, transparency and accountability in administration. The National Common Minimum
Program of the Government envisaged that Freedom of Information Act will be made more
progressive, participatory and meaningful, following which, decision was made to repeal
the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and enact a new legislation in its place. Accordingly,
Right to Information Bill, 2004 (RTI) was passed by both the Houses of Parliament on
May, 2005 which received the assent of the President on 15th June, 2005. The Right to
Information Act was notified in the Gazette of India on 21st June, 2005. The The Right to
Information Act became fully operational from 12th October, 2005. This new law empowers
Indian citizens to seek any accessible information from a Public Authority and makes the
Government and its functionaries more accountable and responsible.
During the period of the implementation of the RTI Act i.e. October 2005 onwards, it has
become evident that there are many anticipated and unanticipated consequences of the Act.
These have manifested themselves in various forms, while some of the issues pertain to
procedural aspects of the Government; others pertain to capacity building, and so on. The
most important aspect to be recognized is that there are issues to be addressed at various ends
for effective implementation of the Act.

1.2 SCOPE OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

The Act covers the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, where J&K Right to
Information Act is in force. It covers all constitutional authorities, including the executive,
legislature and judiciary; any institution or body established or constituted by an act of
Parliament or a state legislature. It is also defined in the Act that bodies or authorities
5 | Page

established or constituted by order or notification of appropriate government including bodies

"owned, controlled or substantially financed" by government, or non-Government
organizations "substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds" provided by the
government are also covered in the Act.
1.2.1 Private bodies
Private bodies are not within the Act's ambit directly. In a decision of Sarbjit roy vs Delhi
Electricity Regulatory Commission,1 the Central Information Commission also reaffirmed
that privatised public utility companies are not applicable for RTI. As of 2014, private
institutions and NGOs receiving over 95% of their infrastructure funds from the government
come under the Act.2
1.2.2 Political parties
The Central Information Commission (CIC), consisting of Satyanand Mishra, M.L. Sharma
and Annapurna Dixit, has held that the political parties are public authorities and are
answerable to citizens under the RTI Act. The CIC, a quasi-judicial body, has said that six
national parties - Congress, BJP, NCP, CPI(M), CPI and BSP and BJD - have been
substantially funded indirectly by the Central Government and have the character of public
authorities under the RTI Act as they perform public functions. 3In August 2013 the
government introduced a Right to Information (Amendment) Bill which would remove
political parties from the scope of the law. In September 2013 the Bill was deferred to the
Winter Session of Parliament. In December 2013 the Standing Committee on Law and
Personnel said in its report tabled in Parliament.4

1 http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_30112006
2 http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/private-institutions-ngos-nowcome-under-rti-act-information-commissioner/article6688274.ece
3 PTI. "Khurshid sounds warning note on RTI ruling". The Hindu. Retrieved march 27, 2016.
4 "Parliament panel backs Bill to keep parties out of RTI" Press Trust of India
6 | Page

CHAPTER-II
2.1 PROCESS FOR FILING RTI
The RTI process involves reactive (as opposed to proactive) disclosure of information by the
authorities. An RTI request initiates the process.
Each authority covered by the RTI Act must appoint their Public Information Officer (PIO).
Any person may submit a written request to the PIO for information. It is the PIO's obligation
to provide information to citizens of India who request information under the Act. If the
request pertains to another public authority (in whole or part), it is the PIO's responsibility to
transfer/forward the concerned portions of the request to a PIO of the other authority within 5
working days. In addition, every public authority is required to designate Assistant Public
Information Officers (APIOs) to receive RTI requests and appeals for forwarding to the PIOs
of their public authority. The applicant is required to disclose his name and contact particulars
but not any other reasons or justification for seeking information.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) acts upon complaints from those individuals who
have not been able to submit information requests to a Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer due to either the officer not having been appointed, or
because the respective Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public
Information Officer refused to receive the application for information.
The Act specifies time limits for replying to the request.

If the request has been made to the PIO, the reply is to be given within 30 days of

receipt.
If the request has been made to an APIO, the reply is to be given within 35 days of

receipt.
If the PIO transfers the request to another public authority (better concerned with the
information requested), the time allowed to reply is 30 days but computed from the

day after it is received by the PIO of the transferee authority.

Information concerning corruption and Human Rights violations by scheduled
Security agencies (those listed in the Second Schedule to the Act) is to be provided

within 45 days but with the prior approval of the Central Information Commission.
However, if life or liberty of any person is involved, the PIO is expected to reply
within 48 hours.

7 | Page

Since the information is to be paid for, the reply of the PIO is necessarily limited to either
denying the request (in whole or part) and/or providing a computation of "further fees". The
time between the reply of the PIO and the time taken to deposit the further fees for
information is excluded from the time allowed. If information is not provided within this
period, it is treated as deemed refusal. Refusal with or without reasons may be ground for
appeal or complaint. Further, information not provided in the times prescribed is to be
provided free of charge. Appeal processes are also defined.
2.2 FEES
A citizen who desires to seek some information from a public authority is required to send,
along with the application, a demand draft or a bankers cheque or an Indian Postal Order of
Rs.10/- (Rupees ten) payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority as fee prescribed
for seeking information
The applicant may also be required to pay further fee towards the cost of providing the
information, details of which shall be intimated to the applicant by the PIO as prescribed by
the RTI ACT.5

5 http://rti.gov.in/RTICorner/Guide_2013-issue.pdf
8 | Page

CHAPTER-III
RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROSPECTIVE

The expression freedom of speech and expression in Art. 19(1)(a) has been held to include
the right to acquire information and disseminate the same. It includes the right to
communicate it through any available media whether print or electronic or audio-visual, such
as, advertisement, movie, article or speech, etc. This freedom includes the freedom to
communicate or circulate ones opinion without interference to as large a population in the
country, as well as abroad, as is possible to reach.
In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, the Supreme Court dealt with this aspect of the
freedom elaborately. The right of the citizens to obtain information on matters relating to
public acts flows from the Fundamental Right enshrined in Art. 19(1)(a). Securing
information on the basic details concerning the candidates contesting for elections to
Parliament or the State Legislature promotes freedom of expression and therefore the right to
information forms an integral part of Article 19(1)(a).6
Freedom of expression, as contemplated by Article 19(1) (a) which in many respects overlaps
and coincides with freedom of speech, has manifold meanings. It need not and ought not to
be confined to expressing something in words orally or in writing. Even a manifestation of an
emotion, feeling etc. without words would amount to expression. Communication of emotion
and display of talent through music, painting etc. is also a sort of expression. The Court noted
that ballot is the instrument by which the voter expresses his choice between candidates.7
While expounding the scope of expression in Article 19(1) (a), the Supreme Court has
drawn a distinction between the conferment of the right to vote on fulfilment of requisite
criteria and the culmination of that right in the final act of expressing choice towards a
particular candidate by means of ballot. The Court pointed out that though the initial right
cannot be placed on the pedestal of a fundamental right, but, at the stage when the voter goes
to the polling booth and casts his vote, his freedom to express arises. The casting of vote in
favour of one or the other candidate tantamount to expression of his opinion and preference
6 PUCL v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399 : AIR 2003 SC 2363.
7 Ibid.
9 | Page

and that final stage in the exercise of voting right marks the accomplishment of freedom of
expression of the voter and that is where Article 19(1) (a) is attracted.8
Since right to information is a constituent of the freedom of expression under Art. 19(1)(a),
the amended S. 33-B of Representation of People Act, 1951 which provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the judgment of any Court or directions issued by the
Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information
in respect of his election which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under the Act or
the rules made thereunder, is on the face of it beyond the legislative competence, as the
Supreme Court has held that the voter has a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) to
know the antecedents of a candidate and was therefore ultra vires Act. 19(1)(a).9
It has been said that although elections are fought by political parties, the same would be a
farce if the voters are unaware of the antecedents of candidates contesting elections and it
would be a vote without any basis. Such elections cannot be considered as free or fair. The
concomitant of the right to vote which is the basic postulate of democracy is twofold:

First, formulation of an opinion about the candidates; and

Secondly the expression of choice by casing a vote in favour of the candidate
preferred by the voter.10 In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties11 the petitioners sought
disclosure of information relating to safety violations and defects in various nuclear
power plants, the Court upheld the contention of Union of India that data about fissile
materials are matters of sensitive character which may enable the enemies of the
nation to monitor strategic activities and therefore any information relating to training
features, processes or technology of nuclear plants cannot be disclosed.

8 PUCL v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399.

9 People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399 : AIR 2003 SC
2363.
10 People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399 : AIR 2003 SC
2363.
11 Peoples Union for Civil/Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476 : AIR 2004 SC 1442.
10 | P a g e

Right to information is a facet of the right to freedom of speech and expression as contained
in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Right to information, thus, indisputably is a
Fundamental Right.
But the right does not carry with it an unrestricted right to gather information. A reasonable
restriction on the exercise of the right to know or right to information is always permissible in
the interest of the security of the State. Generally, the exemptions/exceptions under the laws
referred to in Article 19(2) entitled the Government to withhold information relating to the
following matters:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

International relations,
National security (including defence) and public safety;
Investigation, detection and prevention of crime;
Internal deliberations of the Government;
Information received in confidence from a source outside the Government;
Information, which if disclosed, would violate the privacy of the individual;
Information of an economic nature, (including trade secrets) which, if disclosed,
would confer an unfair advantage on some persons or concern, or, subject some

person or Government to an unfair disadvantage;

8) Information which is subject to a claim of legal professional privilege, e.g.
communication between a legal adviser and the client; between a physician and the
patient;
9) Information about scientific discoveries.12
10) Much of this has been covered by the Right to Information Act, 2006
The Supreme Court has given a broad dimension to Art. 19(1)(a) by laying down the
proposition that freedom of speech involves not only communication, but also receipt, of
information. Communication and receipt of information are the two sides of the same coin.
Right to know is a basic right of the citizens of a free country and Art. 19(1)(a) protects this
right. The right to receive information springs from the right to freedom of speech and
expression enshrined in Art. 19(1)(a). The freedom to receive and to communicate
information and ideas without interference is an important aspect of the freedom of speech
and expression. Without adequate information, a person cannot form an informed opinion.
When allegations of political patronage are made, the public in general has a right to know

12People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476 : AIR 2004 SC 1442.
11 | P a g e

the circumstances under which their elected representatives got such allotment. 13In case of a
matter being part of public records, including Court records cannot be claimed.14
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain,15 the Supreme Court has held that Art. 19(1)(a) not
only guarantees freedom of speech and expression, it also ensures and comprehends the right
of the citizens to know, the right to receive information regarding matters of public concern.
The Supreme Court has underlined the significance of the right to know in a democracy in
these words:
In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be
responsible for their conduct there can be but few secrets. 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. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though
not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for
transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security. To cover with
veil of secrecy, the common routine business is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy
can seldom be legitimately desired. It is generally desired for the purpose of parties and
politics or personal self-interest or bureaucratic routine. The responsibility of officials to
explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption.
In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket
Association of Bengal,16 the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that the freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) includes the right to acquire information
and to disseminate the same.

13 Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673.

14 District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496 : AIR 2004 SC 1442.
15 AIR 1975 SC 865, 884 : (1975) 4 SCC 428.
16 Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of
Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1236; infra, 117778.
12 | P a g e

In Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others v. Union of India,17the Supreme Court dealt with the
right to freedom of information and observed in modern constitutional democracies, it is
axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the government which,
having been elected by them, seek to formulate sound policies of governance aimed at their
welfare. The Court further observed:
Democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of a free society and the sunlight
is a best disinfectant. The Delhi High Court in Association for Democratic Reforms v.
Union of India,18 has emphasized that the right to receive information acquires great
significance in the context of elections.19

CHAPTER IV
4.1 EXCLUSIONS
Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified in the Second Schedule like IB,
Directorate General of Income tax(Investigation), RAW, Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau,
Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special
Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau, Special
Branch (CID), Andaman and Nicobar, The Crime Branch-CID-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli
and Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police etc. will be excluded. Agencies specified by the
State Governments through a Notification will also be excluded. The exclusion, however, is
not absolute and these organizations have an obligation to provide information pertaining to
allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Further, information relating to
allegations of human rights violation could be given but only with the approval of the Central
or State Information Commission.
4.2 INFORMATION EXCLUSIONS

The following is exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the Act:17 (1997) 4 SCC 306 : (1997) 1 SCJ 697.
18 AIR 2001 Del 126, 137.
19 Supra, Ch. XIX.
13 | P a g e

Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and

integrity of India, the security, "strategic, scientific or economic" interests of the State,

relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offense;

Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law

or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament

or the State Legislature;

Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property,
the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless
the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure

of such information;
Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such

information;
Information received in confidence from foreign Government;
Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any
person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law

enforcement or security purposes;

Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or

prosecution of offenders;
Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers,

Secretaries and other officers;

Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of the individual (but it is also provided that the information
which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied by
this exemption);

Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority may allow access to
information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
However, this does not apply to disclosure of "trade or commercial secrets protected by law.
How do the Official Secrets Act and the Right to Information Act square up?
The RTI Act, 2005 clearly says that in case of a clash with the OSA, the public interest will
prevail. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act says, Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets
Act, 1923, nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection 8(1) of RTI
14 | P a g e

Act, a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure
outweighs the harm to the protected interests.20
The implementation of the transparency law has been facing roadblocks. Queries under the
RTI Act often receive stereotypical responses such as, The requisite document is sensitive in
nature and no public interest is going to be served by the disclosure of this document. At
times, government authorities have claimed exemption under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act,
pleading that collecting information would require extraordinary manpower. On other
occasions, they have claimed that the information sought is too old.

CHAPTER V
5.1 RELEVANCE OF RTI WITH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
The modern trend is towards more open government. The right to know is part and parcel of
freedom of speech and expression and is thus a fundamental right guaranteed under article 19
of the constitution. It is also equally paramount consideration that justice should not only be
done but also be publically recognised as having be done.21
In Reliance Petrochemicals ltd. V Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) ltd.22
Mukherjee J stated: we must remember that the people at large have a right to know in order
to be able to take part in participatory development in industrial life and democracy. Right to
know is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right
to live in this age of our land under article 21 of the constitution. The right has reached new
dimensions and urgency. The right puts greater responsibility upon those who take upon
themselves responsibility to inform.

20

http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-its-a-secret/#sthash.TyB10e2Z.dpuf

21 R.k. jain v. union of india. (1993) 4 SCC 119

22 (1988)4 scc 592
15 | P a g e

In the leading case of Raj Narayan23, the Supreme Court observed that in a government of
responsibility like ours, where all the agents of public must be responsible for their conduct,
there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have 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 bearing. The right to know which is
derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should
make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions, which can at any rate, have no
repercussion on public security.
In Dinesh Trivedi V. UOI24, a political activist was killed. One of the person arrested was a
known politician. A committee was set up to enquire into the activities and links of mafia
organisations and criminalisation in politics. The committee submitted its report which was
not made available to public. A writ petition was therefore filed in Supreme Court under
article 32. The Supreme Court in this case held that Democracy excepts openness and
openness is a concomitant of free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

CHAPTER VI
6.1 IS JUDICIARY UNDER RTI?
Information relating to judicial records is not excluded from the information which is
required to be provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, most of the
courts do not provide information relating to judicial records under RTI. Many of the courts
have specifically made rules that restrict providing of information relating to judicial records,
though in vague language.
For example, under Rule 5(a) of the Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006,
such information which relates to judicial functions and duties of the Court and matters
incidental and ancillary thereto, is exempted from disclosure of information.
The only provisions in the RTI Act that can restrict supply of information are contained in
Section 24, 8, 9 and 11 of the Act. Under Section 24 of the RTI Act, it is laid down that the
23 (1975) 4 scc 428
24 (1997) 5 scc 306
16 | P a g e

provisions of this Act do not apply to certain intelligence and security organisation as are
mentioned therein. Judiciary or courts are not such organisations. Section 8 places restrictions
on supply of certain information mentioned in that section. The only relevant provisions
which could possibly apply in your case could have been clauses (b) and/or (e) of Section
8(1), but they dont apply here. As per clause (b), there shall be no obligation to give
information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or
tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.
However, this provision appears to be applicable only if there is an order of a court passed in
its judicial capacity. Similarly, clause (e) of Section 8(1) says that there shall be no obligation
to provide information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the
competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information.25 Section 9 of the Act places restrictions on supply of information which may
involve infringement of a copyright.
JUDICIARY AND THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
The Supreme Court in case of (Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India Vrs. Cricket Association of Bengal 26 narrowly expanded its view on
the provision of article 19(1)(a) towards the right to information. It held that the right to
freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. For
ensuring the free speech right of citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have
the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues. A successful
democracy posits an unaware citizens diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is
essential to enable the citizens to arrive at informed judgment on all issues touching them.
This Court made more clear of the provision of right to information that is inferred itself in
article 19(1)(a). It held in case of (S.P. Gupta Vrs. Union of India,27)that right to know is
implicit in right of free speech and expression. Disclosure of information regarding
functioning of the government must be the rule. In going back to 1975 this Court in case of
(State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Raj Narain 28) observed that freedom of speech and expression

25 http://tilakmarg.com/answers/can-i-make-an-rti-application-for-getting-judicial-records-from-acourt/ retrieved on 2nd april,2016.

26 AIR 1995 SC. 1236, 1995. 2 SCC 161
27 1981.Supp SCC 87
17 | P a g e

includes right of citizens to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by
their public functionaries.
In the year 1997 the Court also held that freedom of speech and expression includes right of
the citizens to know about the affairs of government. (Dinesh Tribedi Vrs. Union of India29)
The freedom of speech and expression, has been held repeatedly by the Supreme Court is
basic to and indivisible from a democratic polity. It includes right to impart and receive
information. The restrictions to the said could be only as provided in article 19(2). This article
provides that nothing in sub-clause (i) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing
law or prevent the State from making any law, insofar as such law imposes reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign
States, public order, decency or morality. The grounds upon which reasonable restrictions can
be placed upon the freedom of speech and expression are designed firstly to ensure that the
said right is not exercised in such a manner as to threaten the sovereignty and integrity of
India, security of State, friendly relations with the foreign State, public order, decency or
morality. The existing laws providing such restrictions are saved and the State is free to make
laws in future imposing such restrictions. The grounds aforesaid are conceived in the interest
of ensuring and maintaining

6.2 CAN OFFICIALS BE PUNISHED IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE

LAW?
Public officials who deliberately delay or obstruct an application for information, or who
deliberately provide incorrect or misleading information can be punished under the RTI laws.
Penalties are an important part of an RTI law because they play a vital role in changing the
cultures of secrecy that are common within many of India's bureaucracies. Without the threat
of sanction, there is little incentive for bureaucrats to comply with the new terms of the Act.
The Central Act allows for the imposition of penalties. Most notably, where a PIO has,
without any reasonable cause:
28 1975.4 SCC 428
29 1997. 4 SCC 306
18 | P a g e

refused to receive an application;

not furnished information within time limits;

malafidely denied the request;

knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information;

destroyed information subject to a request; or

obstructed the process,

The Information Commission can impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day. The total penalty
cannot exceed Rs. 25,000. Section 20(1) states that "Public Information Officers" can be
penalised, but when read with S.5(5) of the Act (which states that any officer whose
assistance is sought by a PIO will be treated as a PIO for purposes of the Act's penalty
clauses) it is clear that in practice any official can be sanctioned for non-compliance if they
have shirked their duties under the law. Before a penalty is imposed under s.20(1), an official
must be given a reasonably opportunity of being heard.
The official is responsible for providing that he/she acted reasonable and diligently. Under
the Central Act, where a monetary penalty is imposed, the Information Commission can also
recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the applicable service rules. Penalties
can usually be imposed by appeal bodies, whether or not they are internal appeals bodies or
external appeals bodies. Unfortunately, under the Central Act it is unclear under the law
whether the first Appellate Authority can impose penalties, although it is explicit that the
Information Commission can. It is not clear therefore, whether there can be any penalty for
non-compliance that is identified during an internal appeal. Information Commissions will
need to clarify whether Appellate Authorities can refer cases to the Commission for
consideration under s.20. It is possible that Commissions could hear such cases under the
broad appeal remit under s.18(1)(f) which empower Commissions to handle any complain "in
respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this
Act".
CHAPTER VII
7.1 MAKING AN APPEAL
The appeal process falls under section 19 of the Act and envisages a two-step process: firstly,
an appeal to the Appellate Authority and secondly, an appeal to one of the newly established
19 | P a g e

Information Commissions. The appeals process is supposed to be a quicker, cheaper way of

enabling requesters to get a decision reviewed, than going to the courts.
7.1.1 First Appeal to the Appellate Authority
In every public authority, an officer who is senior in rank to the PIO has been designated to
hear appeals. He/she is referred to as the Appellate Authority. The original decision or
rejection notice you receive from the PIO should include contact details for the relevant
Appellate Authority so that you know who you can go to get the decision reviewed. If the
notice is deficient, you may want to check the website of the public authority or contact the
PIO directly and ask for the Appellate Authority's details.
You can make an appeal to the Appellate Authority if:
a) You are aggrieved by the decision made;
b) If no decision was made within the proper time limits;
c) You are a third party consulted during the application process, and you are unhappy
with the decision made by the PIO.
You need to send your appeal to the Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date on
which you received the decision (or you should have received a decision) from the PIO.
However, if you miss that deadline but the Appellate Authority feels that you have been
prevented from making an appeal within this time limit for justifiable reasons, he/she may
allow you to submit an appeal even after the 30 days have expired. The Central Act requires
that the internal Appellate Authority dispose off your appeal within 30 days or 45 days if an
extension is necessary.
You need to send your appeal to the concerned Appellate Authority in writing. Some State
Governments have prescribed forms for filing appeals. You should check the Rules in your
particular State to see what you will need to do or you can check directly with the Appellate
Authority. You can file appeals directly by handing them over in person or send them by
post/courier. Additionally you can also send the appeal to the APIO in the relevant public
authority who then has a duty to forward it to the relevant Appellate Authority.
The Central Act does not permit any fee being levied on an applicant for filing an appeal to
an Appellate Authority (or the Information Commissions). Unfortunately, some State
Governments, like Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, have prescribed Rules which impose
an appeal fee. It is not legal to impose an appeal fee or reject an appeal because of nonpayment. If your State Government has prescribed an appeal fee, you can either move the
20 | P a g e

relevant Information Commission or your High Court to consider the matter or attempt to
bring up the issue before your State Legislative Assembly for debate.
The Appellate Authority must offer you an opportunity to be heard before a decision on your
appeal is reached. The Central Act specifies that in any appeal, it is the responsibility of the
body denying the request to prove that the denial was justified. This means that it is the PIO
who needs to prove to the Appellate Authority that they made the right decision.
7.1.2 Second Appeal to the Information Commission
If you are unhappy or dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellate Authority, the Central
Act provides you with the option of filing a second appeal with the newly constituted
Information Commissions at the Centre or the States. A second appeal against a decision of
an Appellate Authority to the Information Commission must be made within 90 days from the
date on which the decision should have been made or from the date a decision was actually
received. However, the Information Commission has the discretion to allow appeals after this
period has expired.
You need to send your appeal to the relevant Information Commission in writing. In matters
relating to Central Government public authorities, you need to send your appeal to the
Central Information Commission. For matters relating to State Government public authorities
you will need to send your appeal to the concerned State Information Commission. Appeals
against Panchayats will be sent to the relevant State Information Commission.
The Central Government and some State Governments have issued Rules about what
information needs to be included in an appeal to the Information Commissions. In addition to
basic information about your application and how it was processed, your appeal should attach
supporting documents, including: self-attested copies of the orders/decision notice against
which the appeal is being made; and copies of any additional documents you are relying upon
which are referred to in your appeal.
The Central and State Information Commissions manage appeals in accordance with
procedures prescribed under the relevant Appeal Rules. Commissions have the power to take
oral or written evidence on oath/affidavit; inspect documents or copies; hear and receive
affidavits from the PIO against whom the appeal has been made and/or the Appellate
Authority who has decided the first appeal; and to hear from you. If the decision of a PIO or

21 | P a g e

Appellate Authority relates to a third party, then that third party also has the right to be heard
by the Information Commission before it makes a decision.
Appeals proceeding at the Information Commissions are not meant to be formal, like a court
proceeding. It should not be necessary to hire a lawyer to plead your case before the
Information Commission. Proceedings are meant to be informal and non-confrontational.
Although the Commission does have the powers of a civil court under the Central Act,
nonetheless, the Commission is not supposed to operate like a court. If you feel
uncomfortable during an appeals or complaints proceeding you should inform the
Information Commission and you should be able to seek assistance from someone during
your hearing. In any case, the Information Commission is an openness champion, and the
Commissioners and their staff should be alert to ensure that arguments in favour of disclosure
are not overlooked simply because you did not use a lawyer.
7.1.3 Burden of Proof
In any appeals proceeding, the burden of proof that the denial of a request was justified lies
on the person who wants to keep the information secret - the PIO or a third party. In practice,
this means that you should only need to interact with the Commission after the person who
wants to withhold the information has first been questioned, because they are the ones who
have to show the Information Commission that they are right. If a hearing is then organised,
the PIO or third party arguing for secrecy needs to be called on to make their case first. You
will only need to make a case if the Commission thinks the PIO or third party has a point
worth considering. At that stage, you then need to argue in favour of disclosure
The Central Act does not prescribe a time limit for the Information Commission to decide on
an appeal and no time limit has yet been included in any of the Appeal Rules which have
been prescribed. However, best practice would support a deadline of 30-45 days to dispose of
any appeal just like the Appellate Authorities.
If an Information Commission decides that your appeal was justified, the Commission will
need to give you a written decision. The Information Commission has broad and binding
powers to:
a) Order the public authority to take concrete steps towards meeting its duties under the
Act, for example, by providing access to the information you requested, by ordering

22 | P a g e

information be provided in a different form or by reducing the amount of fees you

need to pay;
b) Order the public authority to compensate you for any loss you may have suffered in
the process;
c) Impose penalties on the PIO or any other official who failed in their duties under the
Act.
If the Information Commission decides that your case is groundless, it will reject your appeal.
In either case, the Commission must give notice of its decision to you and the public
authority, which should include any right of appeal.30

CONCLUSION
The citizens of a modern democratic country must have the right to get comprehensive
information about all the policies and prescriptions formulated by the government for the
30 http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/user_guide/appl_rejected.htm viewed
at 17:10 hrs on 5th march, 2016
23 | P a g e

economic and social welfare of the country. To make a strong healthy democratic base in an
economy a well informed and enlightened citizens are necessary.
Therefore, the right to information is a natural right for the citizens in a democratic
framework. In order to make proper transparency and accountability in the government
administration department, it is urgent required for all the citizen to have the right to
information. Along with India, most of the other countries are adopting these particular rights
for their citizens.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS REFFERED:

24 | P a g e

1. Wade, H.W.R. & Forsyth, C.F.; Administrative Law, 9th Ed., Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 2006.
2. Kesari, U.P.D ; Administrative Law ,15 th Edition Central Law Publications
,Allahabad,2005
3. D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, (13th edn., Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co., 2001).
4. G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, (7th edn., G. P. Singh ed., Nagpur:
Wadhwa & Co., 1999).
5. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India Vol. I-III (4th edn., New Delhi: Universal
Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1993).
6. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (5th edn., New Delhi: Wadhwa & Co., 2003).

WEBSITES REFERRED:
1. www.legalindia.com
2. www.lawyersclub.com
3. www.legalservicesindia.com

25 | P a g e