Right to Information can be referred as freedom of information legislation.

The concept and

practice of Right to Information are based on a legal process that requires government
information to be made available to citizens.

Article 39 of the Bangladeshi Constitution ensures every citizen's right to freedom of speech and
expression, as well as freedom of the press, but limits these rights in the interests of national
security, cordial relations with other nations, public order, and so on. The right to seek, receive
and impart information isn’t explicitly mentioned in the article, although the preamble of the Right
to Information Act states that this right is an intrinsic component of freedom of speech.

Bangladesh's fight against corruption was a key influence in the country's decision to implement
RTI law. Human rights defenders, media professionals, academics, grassroots organizations,
NGOs, and concerned citizens were among the groups and individuals who took the initiative and
lobbied for the enactment of the RTI legislation.

In 2002 and 2006, the Bangladeshi Law Commission and the Manusher Jonno Foundation an
NGO advocating for freedom of information, both respectively circulated draft ideas for a Right
to Information Act. The non-party caretaker government promulgated the Right to Information
Ordinance 2008 (Ordinance 50 of 2008) in the Bangladesh Gazette, on October 20, 2008.  The
2008 Ordinance was subsequently ratified by an elected government and the Right to
Information Act (RTI Act) came into force on 1 July 2009.

The Act consist of 37 sections and divided into 37 parts, each dealing with specific aspects.

According to the Preamble, the purpose of the RTI Act is to increase transparency and
accountability, decrease corruption and establish good governance. The Act includes a provision
whereby laws that create an impediment to the right to information are superseded by the RTI
Act in case of a conflict of laws. Right to information is laid down as a principle underlying the
functioning of the government and “no authority shall conceal any information or limit its easy
access” (Section 6(2)).

The scope of the RTI Act in terms of bodies obligated to give information includes the executive,
legislative, and organizations that undertake public functions, such as- NGOs, international
organizations and other private bodies. Only citizens have the right to request and receive
information from public entities.

The RTI Act includes a long list of information that should be proactively published but doesn’t
explicitly mention that such information should be available online. This includes information on
decisions, activities, policy related documents and reasons for their adoption. On an annual
basis, every authority shall publish a report containing information about its structure and
activities, rules and regulations, conditions on accessing services and information on freedom of
information officers.

The RTI Act's access to information regime takes precedence over impediments laid down in
other laws but there is a list of 20 exemptions which are broadly protected, which includes- state
security; international relations; commercial secrets and intellectual property rights; tax and
budget information; law enforcement; judicial activities; investigations etc.
To make the RTI Act effective, Information Commission of Bangladesh (ICB) has been delegated
to deal with publishing and providing information on demand of the citizens. Despite the
legal framework, there are significant challenges in accessing information held by public
or private authorities due to misuse and shortcomings of this Act. The RTI Act is a
challenging process, because according to studies it is attributed to flaws in the
legislative framework as well as extra-legal elements such as the culture of secrecy, red-
tapism, culture of fear, the lack of trust.

 The unawareness of citizen is a key barrier. People’s awareness of their own right to
information and the legislative framework is a precondition for the demand for
information. The stronger the demand factor, the greater the pressure will be on the
supply side for its fulfillment but in reality, a large amount of people is unaware about
this. A survey done by RTIF (Right to Information forum) found that 44.2 percent of the
respondents of that survey were unaware of RTI and RTIA.
 According to the World Bank's Bangladesh Right to Information (RTI) Survey in 2019, it
was observed that RTI Act does not provide enough benefit in terms of receiving
information due to its slow and time-consuming process. For this reason, they lose
eagerness to use this Act.
 Another serious challenge for implementation of the law is the capacity of governmental
agencies. frequent transfers, lack of training for the officers make implementation of the
law less efficient.
 The interaction between the RTI Act 2009 and other legislation is crucial in determining
its efficacy. The Act includes a provision whereby laws that create an impediment to the
right to information are superseded by the RTI Act in case of a conflict of laws. So, there
are some Acts which conflicts with RTI and hampers its implementation. Such as-
the Official Secrets Act 1923 OSA prohibits unauthorized collection or disclosure of
secret information and imposes fines for perpetrators, even in cases when a person
voluntarily receives secret official information but knows or ought to have known it is
classified. Attempts to or assistance in breaching the OSA are also punishable. The RTI
Act overrides the OSA, but intelligence and secret services are excluded from this Act
and there are a number of exemptions applicable to information related to national
security with no public interest test prescribed.
According to Section 32 of the Digital Security Act, anyone who commits or aids and
abets any offence under the Official Secrets Act 1923 via digital means faces a sentence
of up to 14 years in jail and/or a fine of up to Tk 25 lakh. the Digital Security Act's
following reference to the Official Secrets Act of 1923 has been criticized for weakening
the RTI Act's intent.
Several other provisions of the Digital Security Act, on the other hand, pose a risk to
the RTI Act's proper implementation. defamation and blasphemy, for example, are
excessively broad and imprecise. Furthermore, section 43 empowers law enforcement
agencies by describing offences such as posting "offensive, misleading, or terror
provoking information," obtaining or exploiting identification information without
permission, and rules on enforcement to arrest someone without a warrant if they
have reason to think that an offence has been committed or that an offence is likely to
be committed. . These measures are not only vulnerable to abuse, but they also have
a chilling effect on free speech and effectively limit the RTI Act's application.

Furthermore, Section 31 of the RTI Act protects government actions taken in "good
faith." The term "good faith" is vague. abusive and discriminatory behaviors may occur
as a result of the authority's subjective satisfaction based on the good faith provision.
The inclusion of a good faith clause in the Act with the purpose of holding government
officials accountable is intrinsically contradictory.

Apart from the shortcomings in the RTI Act, there are certain practical concerns with
its implementation, such as the role of Information Commissions (IC) and Chief
Information Commissions (CIC). Previously, many of the IC and CIC nominees were
retired Government officials who were reticent to leave their practice of the secrecy
culture. As a result, they have been unable to create a pro-citizen culture within the
RTI system.

Concerned applicants' efforts under the Act are additionally hampered by the Act's
rather complicated request for information method and unnecessary bureaucratic red-
tapism.
In conclusion, it can be said that the RTI Act is a mixed blessing as it presents
obstacles and opportunity for establishing transparency and accountability of the
government agencies. To be in accordance with international standards, the
legislative framework must be revised. Addressing the extralegal elements will
necessitate a collaborative effort from various interest groups. Civil society, the
media, and the judiciary may all play an important role in popularizing the RTI Act and
upholding the ethos of access to information. on the whole, the RTI Act has a
concrete effect on the ground, a possibility to achieve societal change, to achieve that
social change this Act needs proper implementation.