Right To Information in India: Outline

RIGHT TO INFORMATION 1
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
IN INDIA
OUTLINE
NAME PAGE NO.
Introduction 3
Research methodology 5
CHAPTER - 1
What is the need for Information? 6
CHAPTER - 2
Right to Information as a tool to combat corruption 7
CHAPTER - 3
Constitutional development of the Right to Information 10
CHAPTER – 4
Legislating the Right to Information 13
CHAPTER - 5
Right to Information Act, 2005 15
CHAPTER – 6
Issues in Implementation of the RTI Act 16
CHAPTER – 7
Right to Information and the Higher Judiciary in India 19
Conclusion 23
Suggestions 25
Bibliography 26
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1758022

INTRODUCTION
Right to Information is the bulwark of democratic government. This right is

essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. Right to Information is an
integral part of the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(A) of the
constitution, which is regarded as the first condition of liberty. It occupies preferred
position in the hierarchy of liberties giving succour and protection to other liberties. The
expression “freedom of speech and expression” in Article 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 one‟s opinion without interference to as large a population in
the country, as well as abroad, as is possible to reach. Communication and receipt of
information are the two sides of the same coin. An important aspect of freedom of speech
and expression is considered the freedom to receive and disseminate information without
any hindrance. Without adequate information, a person cannot form an informed opinion.
In a country like India where the government consists of numberless agents of the
public, each one of them has to be responsible for their own conduct and hence, there is
no room for maintaining secrets. In less than a decade, the flourishing movement for the
right to information in India has significantly empowered the ordinary citizen. He can
now exercise significant check over the arbitrary use of power by the State functionaries
and thereby the democratic set-up of the country is expanding. People of India have long
battled to achieve the Constitution and thereby the inalienable fundamental rights. The
right to information is also one of fundamental rights implicit in the Constitution.
Fundamental Right to Information is the sine qua non of democracy in India because
historically the culture of the executive has been one of secrecy in India since the colonial
rule. There has never been constant and resolute access to information.
Where the disclosure of information is required proactively, it is often ignored or

taken very lightly. The growing number of complaints and appeals are responsible to
strain enforcement mechanisms for the new law. Nonetheless, the potential of
transformation of the new law has already been demonstrated by the advocates of RTI
Act, and they are continuously pressing for proper implementation in a very energetic
way. Innovations have been developed in practice by the public officials and civil society
organizations which may prove to be of great use to other countries ready to adopt similar
laws.
One thing should be kept in mind that Judiciary is one of the three wings of the
government along with the Legislature and Executive, and it is also accountable to the
people like the other two. If any sort of immunity is resorted to the judiciary from Right
to Information Act then it will be completely in contradiction of the basic principle of
transparent and accountable governance, that the enforceable right of the citizen to
government held information must be the rule, with only a few exceptions for genuine
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1758022

considerations of national security and individual privacy. Right to Information is no

doubt a key to good governance.
There was never a doubt that Indian judiciary is one of the strongest judiciaries in
the world. This strength of the judiciary can be evidenced by protection from
accountability afforded to judges include the virtual immunity from public criticism due
to the law of contempt of court, lack of any effective disciplinary mechanism, the self
acquired protection from even being investigated for criminal offences, and finally by the
immunity from public scrutiny by another judicially created insulation from the Right to
Information Act.
But the right does not carry with it a right in an absolute sense of the term to
gather information. A reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to know or right
to information can always put in order to ensure the security of the State. Generally, the
exemptions/exceptions under the laws referred to in Article 19(2) entitled the
Government to withhold information to the following matters:
1. International relations.
2. National security (including defence) and public safety.
3. Investigation, detection and prevention of crime.
4. Internal deliberations of the Government.
5. Information received the confidence from a source outside the Government.
6. If the information can violate the right to privacy of an individual, if disclosed.
7. If information can confer an unfair advantage on some persons or to an unfair
disadvantage i.e. of an economic nature, (including trade secrets), if disclosed.
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.1
10. Much of this has been covered by the Right of Information Act, 2006.
1
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476 : AIR 2004 SC 1442.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:
The aim of the researcher is to outline firstly the significance of the right to
information, particularly in empowering ordinary citizens to combat state corruption as
well as to highlight some lacuna in the Right to Information Act. The aim is to
focus over the efforts at the national level to legislate this right. The researcher has tried
to focus over the implication of Right to Information Act over the Higher Judiciary in the
light of latest controversy in the case of The Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of
India v. Subhash.
STYLE OF WRITING:
The researcher has used analytical and descriptive style of writing
SOURCE OF DATA:
The researcher‟s main source of data collection was secondary data as collected
from various books, articles, journal and the various website.
MODE OF CITATION:
The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout this project.
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS:
Whether the RTIA is meeting expectations about its revolutionary potential? This is a
question that is relevant not only in India, but in many other countries in similar
circumstances, which have either adopted or are considering the adoption of FOIA-style
legislation. The aim of this article to is synthesize the main findings of these recent Indian
studies.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
 What is the need for the information in a democracy?

 What are the constitutional developments for the right to information?
 Whether the Higher Judiciary should be covered within the scope of of the RTI
Act or not?
HYPOTHESIS:
The only way to secure substantial right to information available to the citizens of India is
to implement the Right to Information Act, 2005 strictly according to the provisions of
law. It is essential that the Higher Judiciary should realize its responsibility and should be
covered within the scope of the RTI Act. Higher the authority, higher should be the
accountability to the people of India.
CHAPTER – 1
WHAT IS THE NEED FOR INFORMATION
It should be remembered that Right to Information or the Freedom of Information

has the ability to generate more controversy and heated debate than virtually any other
aspect of contemporary government and administration. Freedom of Information has long
been a rallying cry of libertarians. But what does freedom of information mean? For most
those who employ the phrase it means that the public files, documents or the information
in any form, should be normally accessible to the common people so as to know what
government in up to. In some jurisdictions, it may mean not only allowing access to
government documents in whatever form they happen to exist, but also opening up the
meetings of governments, their advisory bodies and client groups to public scrutiny. Or it
may involve access by individuals to files containing information about themselves – and
an assurance that the information is not being used for improper or unauthorized purposes.
It covers individual access to information, and the protection of information upon
individuals form unjustified use. If individual access to such information is too costly, or
too sensitive or not worth the effort because of public apathy, or because there is little
public feedback of views or ideas to inform specialists or decision-makers, is this an
argument against freedom of information? Or is it an argument in favour of the provision
of essential and unadulterated information to bodies that we trust, so that they may check
the policy-making process, render that process accountable, and report on their findings?
The reason for coining the phrase „Information Society‟ was to evaluate the
essence of the advanced computerized world. From financial markets to government,
from national security to education, form multinational corporations to small employers,
from police to social welfare, medical treatment and social services, we are confronted by
information repositories and retrieval systems whose capacity to store and transmit
information is staggering. If we study the constitutional history of Britain then we will
find that parliament‟s desire to know about who counselled and advised the monarch in
the formulation of policy was a major factor in the struggle between Crown and
Parliament. What is novel in our society, however, is the heightened awareness of the use,
collection, dissemination or withholding of information. Our capacity as human beings to
acquire, use and store information is essential for our survival. This might appear a tall
claim for something which in English law cannot be the object of theft. 2At a practical
level, disasters are avoided, accidents prevented and sustenance provided by our use of
information. Hamlet‟s tragedy was that he was accurately informed; Othelo‟s that he was
not. While information itself is important, our ability to discern the degree of the
reliability of the information provided is essential in the exploitation of resources or
relationships, or in the exposure of sham.
2
Oxford v. Moss (1978) 68 Cr App Rep 183
INFORMATION AND THE STATE:
The position that a ruling body adopts towards the provision of information about
its activities to a representative chamber or the civil society at large will inevitably be
coloured by considerations about the proper role of government, as well as sheer political
experience. When the government was in the personal household of Monarch, the words
of James I of England expressed the „private nature‟ and arcane mysteries of state
business by warning that „None shall presume henceforth to meddle with anything
concerning our government or deep matters of state‟.3The nature of the bond between the
citizens and the State, and the bond between citizens among themselves, is formulated in
an implied contract, not an unalterable status. Breach by the government justifies its
removal.
It was the theme that was to be developed in the liberal tradition. There are
arguable reasons why confidentiality must be maintained or not maintained in various
relationships. These relate to individual respect and integrity. A problem arises when the
private body in question exercises considerable influence in public life but insists on
confidentiality in its operations to such an extent that it is effectively its own master. A
lack of information facilitates a lack of accountability for the exercise of power and
influence and the impact these forces have upon the public interest where democratic
controls are absent.4
„Secrecy being an instrument of conspiracy‟, said Bentham, „ought never to be the

system of a regular government‟. 5 Secrecy was the climate in which, at worst, those
placed in government would abuse the power which had been given to them. It protected
misrule. Publicity, regular elections and a free press were needed to safeguard the
electorate from their chosen governors-from the excesses of „bullies, blackguards and
buffoons‟. „What can we reason but from what we know?‟ – Bentham.
The UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 59(I), stating, “Freedom of

information is a fundamental human right and ... the touchstone of all the freedoms to
which the United Nations is consecrated.” 6 Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”7
3
Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture (1994).
4
Patrick Birkinshaw LLB, Freedom of Information, (3rd Edn. 2001), at p. 25.
5
„Works of J Bentham‟, (1843) ed H Bowring , 2, pp 310-17.
6
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CUWp4ghUOL0J:www.humanrightsinitiative.or
g/programs/ai/rti/articles/undp_rti_2006/annex4_global_perspective
7
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/articles/undp_rti_2006/annex4_global_perspective_o
n_rti.pps
CHAPTER – 2
RIGHT TO INFORMATION AS A TOOL TO COMBAT

CORRUPTION
In India today, being a welfare-state, the state has spread its tentacles to virtually
every aspect of public life. The person on the street is condemned to grapple hopelessly
with corruption in almost every aspect of daily work and living. Information is power,
and the executive at all levels attempts to withhold information to increase its scope for
control, patronage, and the arbitrary, corrupt and unaccountable exercise of power.
Ultimately the most effective systemic check on corruption would be where the citizen
herself or himself has the right to take the initiative to seek information from the state,
and thereby to enforce transparency and accountability. It is in this context that the
movement for right to information is so important. The statutory right to information
gives a legal right to have access to government-held information strengthens democracy
by ensuring transparency and accountability in the actions of public bodies. It enhances
the quality of citizen-participation in governance from mere vote-casting, to involvement
in the decision-making that affects her or his life.8
A statutory right to information would secure for every citizen the enforceable right
to question, examine, audit, review and assess government acts and decisions, to ensure
that these are consistent with the principles of public interest, probity and justice.
Alternatively, the greater the restrictions that are placed on access, the greater the feelings
of `powerlessness‟ and „alienation‟. Without information, people cannot adequately
exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens or make informed choices.
Government information is a national resource. Article 39 of the Constitution of India
makes clear that the end of State in India is not doctrinaire but practical. The humanist
path towards socialistic pattern of society is ideal for India and Article 39 (b)9 and (c)
illustrates this ideal and it also illustrates the doctrine of growth accompanied by
distributive justice.10 These clauses, together with other provisions of the constitution,
contain one main objective, namely, the building of a welfare State and an egalitarian
social order, to fix certain social and economic goals for immediate attainment by
bringing about a non-violent social revolution. Through such a social revolution, the
Constitution seeks to fulfill the basic needs of the common man and to change the
structure of the society, without which political democracy would have no meaning. 11The
expression „Material resources‟ is wide enough to include not only natural or physical
resources but also movable or immovable property. It would include all private and
public sources of meeting materials needs, not merely public possessions. 12 Then why
can‟t the public information be included with the meaning of material resources of the
community. And if the public information is a material resource then the State is duty
8
SHALU NIGAM, Right to Information Law & Practice, at p. 4.
9
The ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to
subserve to common good.
10
Churk Cement Mazdoor Sangh v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 All 88.
11
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 : 1973.
12
D.D. BASU, Constitutional Law of India, (8th Edn. Vol. 3), at p. 4087.
bound to distribute it so as to subserve the common good. And the Right to Information
Act is the best way to fulfill this requirement. No type of information is created by any
government or public officials for their individual benefit. This information is created so
that the duties of office could be properly discharged by the public officials and for
purposes related to the legitimate discharge of the service of the public for whose benefit
the institutions of government comes into existence, and by whom ultimately the salaries
of the officials and institutions of government are funded. It follows that government and
officials are `trustees‟ of this information for the people. The members of the public are
enabled to have legal access to documents, information and files of the government
through the Right to Information Act that may not otherwise be available without the
discretion of government. Under the parliamentary system the information is transferred
from government to the parliament and the legislatures, and from these to the people. It is
hoped that the gap between the „information rich‟ and the „information poor‟ would be
reduced through the recent technological developments in the country. However, it may
be found that in practice the situation of bureaucracy in India remains the same as was
prevalent during the rule of British. Bureaucracy, even now, can be found as one of
secrecy, distance and mystification. In fact, this preponderance of bureaucratic secrecy is
usually legitimized by a colonial law, the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which makes the
disclosure of official information by public servants an offence.
It is expected that the quality of decision making by public officers will improve by
the right to information, in all sorts of matters, when the unnecessary secrecy around the
decision making process will be removed. The quality of participatory political
democracy will definitely improve after the citizens are given a chance to participate in
the political process in an informed way in the political process. The citizen would be
able to assess the performance of the government and public officers, and to have a role
in participating and influencing the decision-making process of the government, after
having an access to pertinent information. It would be important to see an increasing
impact on eradication of corruption and the control on arbitrary exercise of power with
the availability of such information to the citizens.
CHAPTER – 3
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIGHT TO

INFORMATION
It is required to stress at the very threshold that the movement of right to

information in India was never aimed to merely ensure an access to the public
information. Rather, the aim is create such favourable conditions so that the right to
information can be effectively exercised. It is for sure that that the Indian Constitution
does not contain any specific right to information or even right to freedom of the press.
The Chapter on Fundamental Rights when interpreted broadly guarantees the right to
information as a part of freedom of speech and expression. As pointed out by H.M.
Seervai, “Corruption, nepotism and favouritism have led to the gross abuse of power by
the Executive, which abuse has increasingly come to light partly as a result of
investigative journalism and partly as a result of litigation in the Courts” 13. It is submitted
that the provisions of the two constitutions (US and Indian) as to freedom of speech and
expression are essentially different. The difference being accentuated by provisions in our
Constitution for preventive detention which have no counterpart in the US
Constitution.14Several decisions given by the Supreme Court from time to time have been
actually responsible for the development of legal position with regard to the right to
information in India. These decisions were not given specifically in the context of the
right to information, but specifically in the context of the Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression. Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression has been said to be the opposite
or invert side of the Right to Know, and it is not possible to exercise one without the
other.
The landmark case in freedom of the press in India was Bennett Coleman & Co.
vs. Union of India15 in which the court struck down the newsprint control order saying
that it directly affected the Petitioners right to freely publish and circulate their paper. In
that, it violated their right to freedom of speech and expression. The judges also
remarked, “It is indisputable that by freedom of the press meant the right of all citizens to
speak publish and express their views” and “Freedom of speech and expression includes
within its compass the right of all citizens to read and be informed.” The dissenting
judgements of Justice K.K. Mathew also noted, “The freedom of speech protects two
kinds of interests. There is an individual interest, the need of men to express their opinion
on matters vital to them and a social interest in the attainment of truth so that the country
may not only accept the wisest course but carry it out in the wisest way. Now in the
method of political government the point of ultimate interest is not in the words of the
speakers but in the hearts of the hearers”. This principle was even more clearly
enunciated in a later case16where the court remarked, “The basic purpose of freedom of
13
H.M. SEERVAI, Constitutional Law of India, (4th Edn. Vol. 2), at p. 1096.
14
H.M. SEERVAI, Constitutional Law India, (4th Edn. Vol. 1), at p. 710.
15
AIR 1973 SC 783
16
Indian Express Newspapers(Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.vs Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641)
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.” Another development on this front was through a subsequent
case17in which it was held that if an official media or channel was made available to one
party to express its views or criticism, the same should also be made available to another
contradictory view. The Court held that a state instrumentality having monopolistic
control over any publication could not refuse to publish any views contrary to its own.
The right to have transparency in criminal justice system and to have it free from any sort
of arbitrariness has been developed by the courts in the area of civil liberties. In Prabha
Dutt Vs. Union of India 18 the Court held that there excepting clear evidence that the
prisoners had refused to be interviewed, there could be no reason for refusing permission
to the media to interview prisoners in death row. In State of U.P v. Raj Narain19 the Court
said, “ While there are overwhelming arguments for giving to the executive the power to
determine what matters may prejudice public security, those arguments give no sanction
to giving the executive exclusive power to determine what matters may prejudice the
public interest. Once considerations of national security are left out there are few matters
of public interest which cannot be safely discussed in public”. Justice K.K.Mathew went
further to say, “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 bearing. Whenever one claims secrecy for his public activities
which do not have any negative effect over the public security, must be cautious of the
right to know available to the people. It is not in the public interest to cover the routine
business with the veil of secrecy. 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 or to justify their acts is the
chief safeguard against oppression and corruption”.20
The expression “freedom of speech and expression” in Article 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 one‟s opinion without interference to as large a
population in the country, as well as abroad, as is possible to reach. 21In People‟s Union
for Civil Liberties22, the Supreme Court dealt with this aspect of the freedom elaborately.
The right of the citizens to obrain information on matters relating to public acts flows
from the Fundamental Right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). The right to information in
basic part of Article 19(1)(a) as for the promotion of freedom of expression it is essential
to secure the information related to the basic details of the candidate contesting the
17
Manubhai D. Shah v. Life insurance Corporation AIR 1981 Guj 15
18
AIR 1982 SC 6
19
AIR 1975 SC 865
20
State of U.P. v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865
21
M.P. JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law, (6th Edn., Vol. 1), at p. 1418.
22
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2363.
elections. In Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others v. Union of India23, the 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”. It has been recognized that the right to know, right to
receive and disseminate the information is within the right to freedom of speech and
expression. Using the best possible means to impart and receive the information has been
recognized as a fundamental right of the citizen of India. The right to know has, however,
not yet extended to the extent of invalidating Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923
which prohibits disclosure of certain official documents.24
Moreover the right to know in a democratic system is neither a fundamental right

nor a common law right. It is pure and simple because it is a statutory right and this right
originates from Constitution of India in accordance with the Article 19(1)(a) and it was
shaped in a statute i.e. The Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence it cannot be described
as pure and simple statutory right. The information which is best facilitated meaningful
cannot be read as an integral part of any fundamental right. The enforcement of the right
can create confusion and at initial stage this right cannot be placed in the pedestal of the
basic or fundamental right but when citizen will go to a department or organization then
only such right will take a crises in many a cases for both citizen seeking information and
authority supplying it with a rightly sharpened sword over his head at the point of heavy
penalty and punishment. Hence the whole Act can be judged at the point of its
implementations and contemporary development wherein each citizen is involved in
plethora of informations and each organization is pre-occupied with abundant work
burden.25
Here RTI Act is concerned with the crystal clear information which must be
furnished to each citizens of India who seek this information. It is very important for
every government to set up effective machinery for the good governance of citizens26.
23
4 SCC 306 : (1997) 1 SCJ 697.
24
MAHENDRA P. SINGH, Constitution of India, (11th Edn.), at p. 130.
25
P.K. DAS, The Right to Information Act 2005, at p. 16.
26
The Constitutional Law of India J.N.Pandey at p.175
CHAPTER - 4
LEGISLATING THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Two infamous cases can be stated here. One was the imposition of the Official
Secrets Act being used to prohibit entry of journalists into an area where massive
displacement is taking place due to construction of a large dam, one of the world‟s largest
dams displacing hundreds of thousands, the Sardar Sarovar Project. Activists discovered
that the potential oustees had little or no knowledge of how their lives were going to be
affected, no knowledge of the time or extent of displacement, nor any idea of the plans
for re-location and rehabilitation. Another dramatic instance which has been in the eye of
international attention during the last few years is the Bhopal Gas Tragedy in Bhopal, the
capital of the largest state in India, claimed several thousand lives and maimed and
handicapped at least the next three generations. Not only did the government refuse to
make public details of the monetary settlements between the government and the Union
Carbide, but several participants at a workshop on the medical aspects of the victims
were arrested for taking notes under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act!
These cases were strong reasons to demand for provisions to be made in a law, so
as to bind government as well as private entities to disseminate information voluntarily
on issues affecting the public interest. The Indian government established a Working
Group in 1977 in order to recommend amendments to the Official Secrets Act to enable
greater spread of information to the public. In 1991 sections of the press27 reported the
recommendations of a task force on the modification of the Official Secrets Act and the
enactment of a Freedom of Information Act, but no legislative action followed. During
the late nineties, the citizens‟ groups started demanding repeal of the Official Secrets Act,
and replace it by a comprehensive legislation so as to make duty to disclose.
The first major draft legislation right to information in the country that was
widely debated, and generally welcomed, was circulated by the Press Council of India in
1996. One important feature of the Press Council draft legislation was that it affirmed in
its preamble the constitutional position that the right to information already exists under
the Constitution, as the natural consequence of the fundamental right to free speech and
expression under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Any fact related to the affairs of the
public authority or body may be defined as information for the purposed of Right to
Information including any of the records related to the affairs of government. The
extraction and receiving certified copies, inspection and taking notes of the public
documents were all included within the right to information. Significantly, the term
`public body‟ included all undertakings and non-statutory authorities, and most
significantly corporation, society, trust, company, firm or a co-operative society, owned
or controlled by private persons or groups able to affect the public interest by their
activities. The few restrictions that were placed on the right to information were similar
to those under other Fundamental Rights.
27
The Hindu, 13th December,1991
Later on a working group chaired by consumer activist H.D. Shourie to draft

legislation for consideration of government submitted its report in May 1997, advanced
on the Press Council Legislation in one respect. Most importantly, it widened the scope
of exclusions to enable public authorities to withhold `information the disclosure of
which would not subserve any public interest‟. The powerful clause referred to earlier,
which provided that only such information that can be denied to parliament or the
legislature can be withheld from the citizen, was not included. The Shourie draft also
made no provisions for penalties in the event of default, rendering the right to
information toothless. However, with the demise in quick succession of two left-leaning
United Front governments, this draft also went into cold storage.
Later on the government started contemplating only to amend a few sections of

the Official Secrets Act, and to list a dozen items on which it would become mandatory
for government to give information on demand. Items not covered by this list would
continue to be covered by the Official Secrets Act. Law Commission of India in its 179th
report and reports of the number of the committees and Councils working on this subject
sensitized the government of India to enact a specific law on the right to information and
also recommended the need for an act on public interest disclosure and protection for
citizens right related to information sought from every public authority. 28 An Act was
required to provide a statutory frame work for this right so that rights can be easily
implemented.
SEEDS FOR THE LEGISLATION ON RIGHT TO INFORMATION:
In 1966, the right to information was established for the federal government
agencies when the United States adopted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). After
the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974, FOIA strengthened and became the
model for other states of the US who adopted similar statutes. FOIA also became the
model for other countries, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – all of which
adopted similar laws in 1982. By 1990, fifteen other nations, mainly the developed
countries in Europe had similar statutes. In the next two decades, similar statutes were
adopted by some of the other developed countries like Germany, United Kingdom and
Japan. While acting as per the advice of international institutions like World Bank, the
FOIA style laws were also adopted by some of the governments later on. By 2010, over
seventy nations had adopted the FOIA style of laws. Even in China, a right to information
was provided by way of adopting certain regulations. The laws adopted by most of the
countries over the last two decades, however, differ in many respects from the United
States and the other countries who had adopted it earlier.
28
179th Report of the Law Commission of India December 14 2001
CHAPTER – 5
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
In order to promote, transparency and accountability in administration,

Parliament passed “Right to Information Bill, 2004 on 15th June, 2005, “The Right to
Information Act” was notified in the Gazette of India on 21st June, 2005, after repealing
the Freedom of Information Act, 2002. The “Right to Information Act” has become fully
operational from 12th October, 2005 so as to enable a citizen of India to secure access to
information under the control of Public Authorities.29This law satisfies a long standing
demand of the people raised through various peoples‟ movements, and gives content and
meaning to the right to information recognized since 1973 by the Supreme Court as a
concomitant of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a).30It is enacted to provide for setting out the practical regime of
right to information for citizens. The Act applies to all States and Union Territories of
India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir - which is covered under a State-level law.
The RTI Act is unique as it shifts the responsibility from appellant to respondent.
India adopted the FOIA-style legislation like the United States. However the RTIA is
broader in scope. While the US FOIA applies only to national government, the RTIA
applies to all of India's state and local governments as well. Under the provisions of the
Act, any citizen may request information from a "public authority" which is required to
reply expeditiously or within thirty days, thus making the Government and its
functionaries more accountable and responsible.31
Unlike many other countries (for e.g. UK) which took several years to
operationalise the Act post the enactment, India took only a few months to bring it into
force. This time was inadequate to change the mindset of the people in Government,
create infrastructure, develop new processes and build capacity to deliver information
under this Act. This has led to implementation issues which need to be identified and
addressed.32
India, although a long-established federal democracy, stands to face challenges in

economic and political development unknown to the wealthy and developed nations that
first adopted FOIA-style laws. Around two-thirds of the total population of India is still
living in rural areas irrespective of a rapid urbanization done throughout the country
during the last few decades. Though the Indian literacy rate grew to 68% in 2007 from
12% at the end of British rule in 194733, but still a person is said to be literate if he is able
to read and right anyone language. Government programs to promote social and
economic development are often undermined by mismanagement and systemic
corruption.
29
http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/RTI_methodology%5B1%5D.pdf
30
S. P. Sathe, Right to Information, at p. 1.
31
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information_Act
32
http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/studybypwc/key_issues.pdf
33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India
CHAPTER – 6
ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT

One was completed by the private consultancy Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC)
for the Indian government's Department of Personnel and Training. The other was
undertaken by a coalition of civil society organizations, the RTI Assessment & Analysis
Group (RAAG), with support from the philanthropy Google.org. Each of the studies
relied on surveys or interviews of thousands of Indian officials and citizens, and both
reached broadly similar conclusions.
The RAAG study estimates that Indian citizens filed about two million requests
for information under the RTIA in the first two and half years of its implementation, from
October 2005 to March 2008. The RTI Act under section 27(1) and 28(1) specifies to the
appropriate Governments and the Competent Authorities to make rules pertaining to
implementation of the Act. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, PIOs are required to provide
reasonable assistance to the applicant in drafting and submission of the application. But
unfortunately the implementation of these clauses seems to far short of satisfaction.
Unless the various problems attached to implementation of RTI ACT are addressed
comprehensively by the appropriate Government and Public Authority in tandem, it
would continue to be an issue.
Going through the studies done by RAAG and PWC, the following issues related
to implementation of the RTI Act can be illustrated, point by point:
1. Low level of awareness: Section 26 of the Act states that the appropriate
Government may develop and organize educational programmes to advance the
understanding of the public, especially disadvantaged communities, regarding
how to exercise the rights contemplated under the Act. 34 But, no proper
educational program has yet been organized by the government to improve the
awareness of the RTI Act among the common people of India.
2. Quality of awareness: It is important to highlight that the quality of RTI

awareness in common public is significantly low, particularly among the
disadvantaged communities such as women, rural population and the people
belonging to OBC/SC/ST category.
3. Non-availability of User Guides for RTI implementation for information

seekers: Under Section 26 of the RTI Act, the appropriate Government is obliged
to publish and distribute user guides (within eighteen months of enactment of the
Act) for information seekers. However, it is found that the Nodal Departments
have not yet published these guides in most of the states. The Central Government
34
Section 26 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(through the Nodal Department – DoPT) has published Guides for Information
Seekers in 2007.
4. Standard forms for RTI application: While the Act does not necessitate having
a standard application form, some States have provided a standard form using
Section 26(3) (c) of the RTI Act. The standard form helps in getting basic
information such as address/ contact numbers, form in which information is
requested etc. Then it is helpful for the Public Authority to identify the nature of
frequent information requests so that it can be provided as a suo-moto disclosure
as per Section 4(2) of the Act. Till now, only 2-3 States have prescribed a
standard form.
5. Inconvenient submission channels for RTI application: As per Section 6(1) of

the Act a citizen can make a request “in writing or through electronic means in
English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is
being made….” However, inadequate efforts have been made to receive RTI
applications through electronic means i.e., on email/ website etc, which can be
done by the appropriate Government using Section 26(3c). There is no provision
in any of the governmental Website to get information; along with that there is no
way to pay the prescribed fees online for such information. It means that online
information is still not possible after five year.
6. Inconvenient payment channels for submission of application fees: In the

absence of clear guidelines and instructions, PAs have chosen a subset of the
allowed payment channels, and majority of PIOs use cash and demand drafts,
which causes inconvenience to citizens.
7. Lack of assistance in filing the application: Under Section 5(3) of RTI Act, it is
expected of the PIO to assist citizens in drafting RTI applications. However, the
respondents are not found to have received any assistance from the concerned PIO
while drafting and filling RTI applications.
8. Constraints faced in inspection of records: Under Section 7(9) of the Act,

information is to be provided in the form it is requested in, unless it would
disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. Some information
requests require the PIOs to do a collation and analysis of data for past 10 years or
more. However, it is found that most of the PIOs never use the provision for
inspection of records. During the information provider survey it was noticed that
Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) was using this provision to provide
information to the applicants.35
9. Failure to provide information within 30 days: Once the appeal or complaint is

filed by the complainant, the Information Commission gets to know the failure of
the Public Authority in providing the information within prescribed time period
35
http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/studybypwc/key_issues.pdf
(30 days or 48 hours or 35 days or 40 days as may be the case). It is found that
more than 50% of the applicants have not received the information within the
prescribed time limit from the Public Information Officer.
10. No Judicial power given to the appellate authority: Section 19 contains the
provision for appeal in case information is denied or given mala fide, unwillingly
and wrongly. First problem is that the appeal process is very lengthy and the
appellate authority has not been given judicial power regarding this. It is
suggested that an amendment should be made in Cr.P.C. regarding appeal for the
information which is denied or wrongfully given and the District Court must be
made as an appellant authority.
11. Higher Judiciary and the Right to Information Act: This is again an issue that
whether the higher judiciary of the country is covered under the provisions of the
Right to Information Act or not. The issue has been discussed in detail in the next
chapter. NHRC chief KG Balakrishnan who demitted office of the Chief Justice
in May 2010, favoured changes in the RTI Act to protect independence of
judiciary and right to privacy, saying loopholes in the law, probably enacted
"hurriedly", were being grossly misused. I don‟t find anything which can actually
damage the judiciary. The judiciary is independent and will remain independent
even if some relevant information is asked for the public good. Balakrishanna
maintained that the Act is "mainly" intended to give information regarding the
spending of the public money.36 He had consistently been maintaining during his
tenure as the chief justice of India that the office of the chief justice of Supreme
Court does not come under the Right to Information Act and hence cannot be
made bound to disseminate any of the information like, disclosure of the assets of
the judges. I cannot understand why he is so much worried about giving any
information related to his office. Transparency is meant for the public good.
Every person is having a right to know what the government agencies are doing.
And the judiciary is well within the definition of government against. Judiciary is
a State well within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, as has
been decided by the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak case. The
further argument of the former CJI that in over 50 countries, which have Right to
Information Act, judiciary is "completely" exempted from the purview of the
legislation except in India is again not acceptable. Unless the higher judiciary will
start considering its responsibility, total transparency is impossible.
36
http://www.zeenews.com/news664624.html
CHAPTER – 7
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AND THE HIGHER JUDICIARY

IN INDIA
HIGHER JUDICIARY( including the judges of the Supreme Court and various
High Courts in India) has recently received a lot of condemnation when Supreme Court
of India preferred to appeal against the judgment of Single Judge of High Court of
Delhi37 in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash C. Agarwal. The Delhi
High Court upheld an earlier order of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), whereby
CIC directed Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court to furnish
information sought by the respondent in the present case, under the Right to Information
Act, 2005.38 The assets of the judges of Supreme Court and High courts were sought to
be disclosed under the Right to Information Act. In order to preserve their honour,
prestige, dignity and the faith that the general public repose in them, the judges of the
Supreme Court and High Court declared their assets voluntarily, as there was severe
criticism by media and public at large. After giving sermons on the significance of such a
declaration to ensure accountability which is directly proportional to independence of the
judiciary, they have granted exemption from disclosure to the contents of such
declaration classifying it as personal information under the section 8(1) (j) of the Act, and
further making such disclosure purely an act of volition of the individual judge. Apart
from the issue of judicial accountability the decision also re-surfaced the debate of
judicial hierarchy. However, the judgment can also be seen as a ray of light in darkness
because judiciary, for the first time, has acknowledged its accountability towards the
people of the country.
I. Background
The Applicant‟s request (made on November 11, 2007) under the Act had basically two
parts:
1. To furnish a copy of the 1997 resolution, which requires every judge of the
Supreme Court and high courts to make a declaration of his/her assets.
2. The information regarding compliance of the above resolution.
After receiving the application, CPIO informed the applicant that a copy of the resolution
would be furnished on remitting the requisite charges. CPIO informed that the registrar of
the Supreme Court never holds or controls the information related to declaration of assets
of the judges of the Supreme Court. On appeal by the applicant, the appellate authority
remanded the matter back to the CPIO observing that he should have disclosed the name
37
The Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash
Chandra Agarwal, W.P. (C) no. 288/2009; judgment pronounced on Sep. 02, 2009.
38
Sec. 8(1)(j) of Right to Information Act, 2005
of the authority holding the requisite information and should have referred the application
to the latter authority in light of section 6(3) of the Act. After remission CPIO rejected the
application presented afresh holding that the applicant should file applications to the
designated authorities of respective high courts to get information related to asset
declaration by their judges. The applicant then approached the Chief Information
Commissioner (CIC) in an appeal.
The CIC order rejected the contentions of CPIO, Supreme Court and held that the
Supreme Court is a public authority under section 2(h) of the Act it is established by the
Constitution of India. Section 2(e) (i) was referred by CIC to hold that the CJI is a
competent authority, under the Act, empowered to frame rules under section 28 of the
Act to carry out provisions of the Act. Rule making power under the Act is conferred
upon the CJI and the Supreme Court who cannot disclaim being public authorities. The
single judge bench of Delhi High court upheld the above mentioned order of CIC. It was
held that the office of CJI is not a distinct public office from the Supreme Court and as
CJI his office is covered under the provisions of the Act. It was also held that information
sought by the applicant cannot be exempted under sections 8(1) (e) or (j) of the Act.
The division bench of the Delhi High Court framed three issues for their
consideration, which are as follows-
1. Whether the respondent had any right to information under section 2 (j) of the Act in
respect of the information regarding making of declarations by judges of the Supreme
Court pursuant to the 1997 resolution?
2. If yes, whether CJI held the information in his fiduciary capacity within the meaning of
the expression used in section 8(1) (e) of the Act?
3. Whether the information about the declaration of assets by the judges of the Supreme
Court is exempt from disclosure under the provision of section 8(1) (j) of the Act?
[
II. The Judgment and its Repercussions
Deciding the first issue, court dealt with two aspects:
1. Establishing what is information held by a public authority,

2. Establishing that the nature of resolutions passed in 1997 and 1999 are binding on
the members of higher judiciary.
Court emphasized the importance of information and knowledge, and to establish that
Right to Information is a universally established principle cited relevant provisions of
several international agreements. Further, the court reiterated that Right to Know is a
necessary concomitant of the fundamental freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined
in article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and held that “responsibility of officials to
explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption”.
While deciding on the nature of the said resolutions, court found that the decision
involved, to a great extent, the examination of role of judiciary in a democracy. The court
cited, Justice Michael Kirby (former judge, Australian High Court) who said, “A judge
without independence is a charade wrapped in a farce inside oppression”. Further the
court tried to establish that greatest strength of judiciary is the faith people repose in it.
Finally it was held that the 1997 and the 1999 resolutions are meant to be adhered by;
therefore they have a binding effect. Therefore the petitioner has the Right to Information
in respect of information regarding making of declarations by the judges of the Supreme
Court.
Bhagwati J. once said, “Concept of independence of judiciary is not limited to

independence from executive pressure, it is a much wider concept… It has many
dimensions, namely, fearlessness from other power centers, economic or political, and
freedom from prejudices acquired and nourished by the class to which the judges
belong”. Further, the Supreme Court itself had emphasized on one occasion that it is an
inalienable duty of judges to maintain highest possible standards of conduct, both on and
off their official duty. The court rightly pointed that if the judiciary fails to assume
responsibility for ensuring high standards of ethical conduct expected by its members,
public opinion and political expediency may lead the other two branches of government
to intervene. The inevitable consequence of such an action will be a compromise on the
principle of independence of judiciary itself.
Furthermore, the double standards laid down in respect of accountability of

separate classes of judiciary, namely, lower judiciary and the higher judiciary are not
justifiable. For example, service rules for the lower judiciary mandates disclosure of
assets to ensure accountability, but there is no such compulsion for the judges sitting on
higher pedestal, where there should have been stricter accountability requirements.
Deciding on the second issue, court rejected the contention of the appellant alleging that
since the resolution itself provides for confidentiality as a condition to any such
declaration, therefore the CJI holds such information under a fiduciary capacity, which
exempts it from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the Act. Section 22 of the RTI Act has
an overriding effect on all other legislations (including the Official Secrets Act); therefore
merely because a document contains a condition of confidentiality, it cannot be exempted
from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the Act. Furthermore it is very well argued that
CJI cannot be fiduciary vis-à-vis judges of the Supreme Court as judges of the Supreme
Court hold independent office, and there is no hierarchy. The document is open for
observation of successive CJIs and hence cannot be exempted from disclosure under
section 8(1) (e) of the Act. The court studied the inherent relation between the two rights,
while it decided the third issue. The Right to Information is derives its authority from the
freedom of speech and expression and the Right to Privacy is derived from right to life
and liberty. The court held that this was the confronting relation between the two rights
that made legislature to enact section 8(1) (j) of the Act exempting the disclosure of
personal information, so as to protect the right to privacy of the public officials. The court
finally decided that the information sought by the applicant does not justify or warrant
protection under section 8(1)(j) of the Act, inasmuch it required the furnishing of the
information related to compliance of 1997 resolution, but the details of any such
declaration will be protected under section 8(1)(j) of the Act as personal information.
Under the RTI Act, public authorities are bound to disclose information which is
sought by any of the citizen of India with an exception under Section (8) of this Act. A
very interesting point is that there is no absolute exemption under clause (e) and (j) of
section 8 of the RTI Act, and bar can be put off if the authority is satisfied that disclosure
is in the interest of the general public. Keeping the faith of general public in the judiciary
intact is in fact the actual fulfillment of public interest. To disclose the information
protected under section 8(1)(j), the public interest is sufficient. The openness is the
necessary concomitant of democracy. Opposition to openness will result in serious
undermining of the faith reposed by general public in the honesty, integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The common man usually does not trust the legislature and
remain suspicious of the acts of the executive, but it always trusts the judiciary. The sole
reason of this blind faith is the self-regulation and abstinence from extraneous influences
exercised by the judiciary, and that image is slowly but surely dampening. It is better if
the judiciary act of its own. Only then it can save its independence, prestige and honour.
If the legislature comes to intervene in this regard to enact a law for disclosure of assets
by the judges then it will not be good for the honour of judiciary itself. The legislature is
all set to bring an enactment on disclosure of assets by judges, which is already in
pipeline. Though the newly introduced Bill was taken back for reconsideration, the
reasons for doing so were not in favour of the principle of independence of judiciary.
In a significant statement given in an interview to leading news channel of India,

Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah has remarked that the judiciary too
falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act. He asserted that the Right to
Information Act applies to all the organs of the Government and all Constitutional bodies,
which includes the legislature, executive and the judiciary. He added that he does not
want to indulge in any kind of fight with the judiciary but differences are bound to occur
between the two bodies.39
Again Balakrishnan says that "Like every other legislation, this (RTI Act) is also
grossly misused by some people. Just like right to information, right to privacy is also an
important right and independence of judiciary is an important thing. These are all on the
basis of Constitution. Just like RTI Act, any other constitutionally valued principles
should also be protected.”40 I admit that the chances of misuse of this act are always
present. But can there be any law which can be perfect or cannot be misused. Controlling
the misuse of any law is in the hands of the government. And we are already having
sufficient provisions for curtailing the misuse in the form of exception in the Act where a
person cannot seek any information like in matters like public safety, integrity and safety
of country, criminal investigations.
In the famous case of Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer & Ors,41

Supreme Court held that judicial officers are not bound to give their reason for judgment.
This is also doesn‟t seem to be correct because the judiciary is not expressly excluded in
u/s 2 (h) and 8 of RTI Act. I suggest that the definition of public officer under RTI Act
cover the judicial officer well within its purview.
39
http://www.india-server.com/news/right-to-information-act-covers-1156.html
40
http://www.zeenews.com/news664624.html
41
AIR 2010 SC 615
CONCLUSION
It is too early to say whether RTIA will be a "great and revolutionary act.”
Whether the RTIA fulfills the hopes of the people of India hinges largely on how it is
implemented. It is difficult to predict whether India is at last at the verge of the passage of
a landmark law which would explicitly guarantee the people‟s right to information. The
rapid legislation of FOIA-style laws in many countries both developed and developing
has caused increasing problems of implementation. But the implementation in India has
been examined more persistently and stubbornly than any other country. Corruption and
mismanagement have been reduced and the governmental responsiveness has improved
according to the reports as the civil society organizations and common men have started
using the RTI Act. Provisions in the law to promote "proactive disclosure" of key
information are often disregarded. It has been seen that due to the non-compliance by
public officials the number of cases complaining for the same have quiet gown up
making the commissions to struggle, which are established for the enforcement of law.
If these challenges are not adequately grappled then it would mean that the law is
meant to serve only those people who are wealthy and have knowledge and resources to
get the law enforced in their favour. The same has been seen in many other countries also
where a law was adopted to meet and serve progressive aims in public interest ultimately
serves interests of already advantaged people by reinforcing their position. Like the other
countries, in India also, the advocates of RTI Act have been continuously facing attempts
of amending the Act, launched from the ministers and bureaucrats so as to restrict the
right to information.
Bureaucratic habits as well as administrative practices in India are built up over

decades owing to traditions and British colonial rule. Indeed, it is to some extent still true
that India is struggling with administrative system. Introduction of Right to Information
Act in India is a good practical with FOIA-style laws. This is because of mainly two
reasons: the vast population of the country who is going to be benefitted and much more
difficult circumstances under which the law is introduced as compared to the other
nations who had adopted it earlier. Numberless challenges are still waiting to come across
and the adoption of an FOIA-style law is merely a step towards the long way to
transparency. This is not possible until the judiciary in the country, especially the higher
judiciary recognizes its responsibility towards the people‟s right to information. Because,
ultimately it will be one best way for judiciary maintain the confidence and trust of the
common man of the country in it.
“Judicial independence doesn’t mean that judges are above the law - Lord
MacKay.”42 This decision showed that higher judiciary could only preach accountability
to other organs of state, viz. legislature and executive (sometimes it includes lower
judiciary also), but when it comes to following their own preaching they are fearful. The
42
Cyrus Das and K.Chandra, Judges and Judicial Accountability (Universal Publication)
Apex Court has itself mentioned in several cases that society‟s demand for honesty of a
judge is exacting and absolute, therefore a judge must keep himself absolutely above
suspicion. The confidence of the common in the honesty and impartiality was destroyed
after seeing the panic and apprehension among the judges, when they were asked to
disclose their assets. Instead of keeping themselves absolutely above suspicion, the act of
opposing disclosure of assets brought them into the centre of suspicion.
It is appreciable that the judiciary has used its craftsmanship to harness the right
to information to achieve an extremely laudable social objective, viz., that of preventing
criminalization of the Indian politics. This seems to be really unfortunate to say that the
judicial system in India has proved itself to be an instrument not really meant for
protecting the rights of the oppressed and poor, rather it has become an instrument to
harass the common man. The system functions with great speed and eagerness when it is
invoked by powerful and rich man, while its functioning becomes abnormal and impaired
in case of the weak and the poor. The courts are increasingly displaying their elitist bias
and it appears that they have seceded from the principles of the Constitution which set up
a republic of the people who were guaranteed "Justice- social, economic and political". It
is again hard to digest that why the higher judiciary is so much insisted for making itself
out of the realm of Right to Information Act because only those who are guilty of
errors, incompetence, misbehavior, dereliction of duty and malpractice may be
concerned and wish that the fact relating to such matters are not made public.
We have got a very good tool in the form of Right to Information Act to ensure
transparency in the public working, but all depends upon its proper implementation. If an
executive is not working properly then we can trust the Judiciary, but now who will
tackle with the judiciary when they are not ready to consider their responsibility towards
the nation in terms of the Right of Information of the people of India. Modern democratic
government means government of the people, by the people and for the people and if they
are ignorant of the issue to be resolved the argument for and against different solution
and the fact underlying those argument the business of the government is not an activity
about which only those professionally engaged are entitled to receive information and
express opinion.43 It is or should be participatory process, but there can be no assurance
that government is carried out for the people unless the facts are made known and the
issues is publicly ventilated.
Since right to information is not absolute, a report made by Committee of Judges

regarding the conduct of High Court Judges to the Chief Justice of India is wholly
confidential and is only for the purpose of satisfaction of the Chief Justice of India. It is
purely preliminary in nature, ad hoc and not final. The authority be which the Chief
Justice of India can exercise this power of inquiry is moral or ethical and not in the
exercise of powers under any law. Exercise of such power of the Chief Justice of India
based on moral authority cannot be made the subject matter of a writ petition to disclose a
report made to him.
43
P.K.DAS, The Right to Information Act ,2005, at p. 6
SUGGESTIONS
1. The role of the Information Commission has to go beyond the Hearing of the
appeals. As per the Act, they are expected to issue orders/directions to the Public
Authorities to carry out their duties as per the mandate of the Act. However till
the time Information Commission assumes the role of ensuring the compliance of
the RTI Act by the various Public Authorities, there would not be any control
mechanism.
2. The efforts made by appropriate Governments and Public Authorities have been
restricted to publishing of rules and FAQs on websites. As compared to RTI Act
the common citizens (and disadvantaged communities) are significantly more
aware of other Government schemes focused on socio-economic development.
Analyzing the issues highlighted in the section, it is clear that the appropriate
Governments and the Public Authorities have taken inadequate steps to make the
RTI process citizen-friendly.
3. The process of RTI application submission should be so designed as to suit the

needs, aspirations and convenience of the citizens. The quality of response
provided can be a direct consequence of the record management practices within
the Public Authority, the transparency in its processes, the training provided to the
concerned PIO, drafting of the RTI application itself.
4. The higher judiciary should understand its responsibility towards the nation. They
must know that how much trust the people of this country repose on them and
they must keep themselves above any sort of suspicion. Ultimately, government
of India consists of three wings, i.e., Legislative, Judiciary and Executive. Hence
judiciary, irrespective of higher or lower, is well within the need for transparency.
This fact should be understood by our higher judiciary. It is the right time for the
judiciary to introspect and save its independence, which it itself has established as
part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
5. There is a need to make the laws stringent against the public officers erring in
giving the information under this section. An amendment should be made in
Cr.pc. so as to make a provision for appeal under the cases in which disclosing of
information is denied or is given wrongly by the public authority. The District
court should be given power to hear the appeals under such cases.
6. An amendment in section 166 of Indian Penal Code should be made so as punish

the public officers who try to conceal the relevant information and give wrongful,
mala fide and misleading information. Failure to provide information by a public
servant must be considered as a non bail able offence as well as a provision
service degradation should be there.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
.
1. Basu Durga Das, The Constitutional Law of India, (8th Edn. Vol. 3, 2008)
Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur.
2. Das P.K., The Right to Information Act, 2005,(2nd Edn., 2008), Universal Law
Publishing Co., New Delhi.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information_Act
4. http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/RTI_methodology%5B1%5D.pdf
5. http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/studybypwc/key_issues.pdf
6. http://www.india-server.com/news/right-to-information-act-covers-1156.html
7. http://www.zeenews.com/news664624.html
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India
9. Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional Law,(6th Edn. Vol. 1, 2010) Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur.
10. Nigam Shalu, Right to Information Law & Practice, (2006), JBA Publishers,
Noida.
11. Ptrick Birkinshaw LLB, Freedom of Information, (3rd Edn., 2001) Lexis Law
Publishing, Virginia.
12. Sathe S.P., Right to Information, (2006), Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur.
13. Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early
Modern Culture (1994).
14. Seervai H.M., Constitutional Law of India, (4th Edn. Vol. 1, 1991), Universal
Law Publishing Co., New Delhi.
15. Singh P. Mahendra, V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, (11th Edn., 2008),
Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.

Right To Information in India: Outline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Right To Information in India: Outline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIGHT TO INFORMATION 1

NAME PAGE NO.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1758022

Right to Information is the bulwark of democratic government. This right is

Where the disclosure of information is required proactively, it is often ignored or

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1758022

considerations of national security and individual privacy. Right to Information is no

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS:

 What is the need for the information in a democracy?

WHAT IS THE NEED FOR INFORMATION

It should be remembered that Right to Information or the Freedom of Information

INFORMATION AND THE STATE:

„Secrecy being an instrument of conspiracy‟, said Bentham, „ought never to be the

The UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 59(I), stating, “Freedom of

RIGHT TO INFORMATION AS A TOOL TO COMBAT

CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIGHT TO

It is required to stress at the very threshold that the movement of right to

Moreover the right to know in a democratic system is neither a fundamental right

LEGISLATING THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Later on a working group chaired by consumer activist H.D. Shourie to draft

Later on the government started contemplating only to amend a few sections of

SEEDS FOR THE LEGISLATION ON RIGHT TO INFORMATION:

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

In order to promote, transparency and accountability in administration,

India, although a long-established federal democracy, stands to face challenges in

ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT

2. Quality of awareness: It is important to highlight that the quality of RTI

3. Non-availability of User Guides for RTI implementation for information

5. Inconvenient submission channels for RTI application: As per Section 6(1) of

6. Inconvenient payment channels for submission of application fees: In the

8. Constraints faced in inspection of records: Under Section 7(9) of the Act,

9. Failure to provide information within 30 days: Once the appeal or complaint is

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AND THE HIGHER JUDICIARY

II. The Judgment and its Repercussions

Deciding the first issue, court dealt with two aspects:

1. Establishing what is information held by a public authority,

Bhagwati J. once said, “Concept of independence of judiciary is not limited to

Furthermore, the double standards laid down in respect of accountability of

In a significant statement given in an interview to leading news channel of India,

In the famous case of Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer & Ors,41

Bureaucratic habits as well as administrative practices in India are built up over

Since right to information is not absolute, a report made by Committee of Judges

3. The process of RTI application submission should be so designed as to suit the

6. An amendment in section 166 of Indian Penal Code should be made so as punish

You might also like