PROJECT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ON
GOVERNMENT PRIVILEGES IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS &
RTI

Submitted to:
Ms. HINA ILIYAS
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Administrative Law

Submitted by:
Umashankar Sidar
Roll No.: 171
Section - C, Semester - VI

Submitted on:
25th March, 2022

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

UPARWARA, POST ABHANPUR, ATAL NAGAR,
RAIPUR (C.G.)- 492002
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 Abstract 1

2 Introduction 2

3 Review of Literature 3

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Problem 4
Rationale 4
Research Objectives 4
Research Questions 4
Concepts & Variables 4
Hypothesis 5
Research Design 5
5 DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS:
Government Privileges in Legal Proceedings & RTI 6-15

6 Conclusion/Findings & Suggestions 16-17

7 References 18-19

i
 ABSTRACT

The government of any country enjoys several freedom and exemptions from the laws
governing the whole country for the better working of the constitutional machinery. It is
always pertinent and it is seen that majority of the countries especially the democratic country
like India follows that certain laws must provide immune to government in legal proceedings
and RTI. This protects the governments crucial information which is necessary to be
protected. In this research project an analysis is made where some areas of working of the
government is immuned (RTI) and how the government is not required to produce evidence
in certain situations. An effort has been made to understand the problems associated with
right to information and access to information through case laws.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Legislation iwas ipassed iby ithe iIndian iParliament iin i2005 iwhich iwas iabout ithe icitizen’s iright ito
i obtain iinformation ifrom iany ipublic iauthority irelating ito iits iadministration, ioperations ior
i decisions. iThe ilaw iwas ipassed ion i15th iJune i2005 ibut icame iinto iforce ion i12th iOctober i2005.
i The ifirst iapplication iwas igiven ito ia iPune ipolice istation. iRight ito iInformation iAct iis ian iact
i made iby ithe iParliament iof iIndia ito ioffer ia isetting iout iof ithe igovernment iof iright ito
i information ifor icitizens iand ireplaces ithe ierstwhile iFreedom iof iInformation iAct, i2002. iUnder
i the iprovisions iof ithe iact iany icitizen iof iIndia imay irequest iinformation ifrom ia ipublic iauthority,
i be iit ia ibody iof iGovernment ior iinstrumentality iof istate, iexpeditiously ior iwithin i30 idays. i

It iis ifundamental idemocratic iright. iIt iis ia ihuman iright ito iaccess iinformation, ito iseek, ireceive
i and iimpact iinformation. iRight ito ifreedom iof iexpression iis ia ifundamental iright iand iupon
i which iall iother irights idepend. iRTI iis ithe i“oxygen iof iDemocracy” ias iit igives imeaning ito
i participatory idemocracy. iIt ialso isupports iparticipatory idevelopment iand iis ia iproven
i anticorruption itool ias i9 iout iof i10 imost ideveloped icountries ihave iRTI. iThe ipower iof ithis iact iis
i that iit imakes icitizens ipart iof ithe idecision-making iprocess iand imakes igovernment iresponsive
i and ialso istrengthen ithe ifoundation iof idemocracy. i

Till inow isecrecy iwas ithe ikey ias ithe iIndian iBureaucracy ihas iinherited iadministrative iculture iof
i secrecy ias icolonial iand ifeudal ilegacy. iSecrecy ihas ibeen ithe imost icommon ifeature iof
i bureaucratic iculture. iSo ifar ias iit ican, ibureaucratic iadministration i‘hides iits iknowledge iand
i actions ifrom icriticism, ithe iconcept iof ithe iofficial isecret iis ithe ispecific iinvention iof
i bureaucracy’ i1 iand iheight iof isame ihas iemerged ias iOfficial iSecret iAct, i1923. i

The imain iobjective iof ithe iact iis ito iprovide idemocracy ithat irequires ito ibe ian iinformed icitizenry
i and itransparency iof iinformation iof iinformation iwhich iare ivital ito iits ifunctioning iand ialso ito
i contain icorruption iand ito ihold igovernments iand itheir iinstrumentalities iaccountable ito ithe
i governed. iThe isame iis iwith ithe ilegal iproceeding is iof ithe igovernment iis imaintain itransparency
i in ithe iproceedings.

2
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Masoom Reza, Right to Information: Fall of the Most Important Legislation. The
author in this article has analyzed the RTI and its changes which has occurred in the
recent times. Also, the comparison has been drawn between the earlier and present
changes with respect to RTI.
2. Subhankar Kar, RTI: A Helping Hand of Transparent Government. Through
this articles author tries to analyze the transparency in the system of government and
its working over a period of time with different case laws mentioning the issues and
its related solutions therein.
3. Vasundhara Singh, Comparative Study of Exemptions Under RTI Act in
Different Countries. The author referring to the statute of RTI Act, 2005 has made
comparison of RTI among different countries and applied in India whether the same
can be implemented or not and had also suggested some solutions on what can be
done to ensure better governance.
4. Administrative Immunity from Statute Operation. The author has went into details
to find out the solution whether providing the government immunity is better for the
better working of the government and can these immunity be good for better
governance.

3
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH PROBLEM
The main purpose of this research is to find out the Government Privileges in Legal
Proceedings & RTI and what sorts of information can be protected under RTI Act, 2005 and
the immunities provided to the government in several legal proceedings and whether all this
ensure better governance.

RATIONALE
The research is carried out with the intention to find out the necessary instances or situations
wherein the government is immuned under RTI Act, 2005 and several statuary operations.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

 To know the exemptions provided to government by RTI Act, 2005.

 To understand the situations where the government is granted immunity under
statutory operations.
 To know that privileges granted ensures better working of state machinery.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 Whether the RTI Act, 2005 ensures transparency of working of government?

 Whether immunity provided to the government for statutory operations should be
allowed?
 Whether better governance will be ensured through this privileges granted to
Government?

CONCEPTS & VARIABLES

RTI: The Right to Information (RTI) is an act of the Parliament of India which sets out the
“

rules and procedures regarding citizens' right to information. ”

Statutory Immunity: Statutory immunity is the protection from legal actions given to
“

certain persons or. entities by statute. ”

HYPOTHESIS
4
 1. Granting government, the immunity and privileges under RTI and statutory operations
under various laws may deteriorate the governance.

RESEARCH DESIGN
Nature of study: The research on the topic of government privileges in legal proceedings in
RTI is restricted to the understanding of the exemptions and immunities granted to the
government. Also, some solutions is tried to be suggested for governance of government.

Sources of data: Various judgements of Supreme Court has been referred. Apart from that
articles, legal blogs, research, articles have been referred.

Method of data collection: Since the project is doctrinal in nature all the secondary sources
have been referred.

Citation Used: the 20th edition of Blue Book has been used and cited uniformly throughout
the project.

5
 DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS

ON

GOVERNMENT PRIVILEGES IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS & RTI

The iadministrative ilaw iprovides ithe ipower iand ialong iwith ithat iit ialso iprovide ithe iremedies iif
i someone iinfringes ithat ipower. iTherefore, igiven ithe iimportance iand icomplexity iof
i administrative ifunctions iit iis iexplicitly iclear ithat ithe iprivileges iavailable ito iGovernment iin
i legal iproceedings ibefore ithe iordinary icourts iof ilaw, iin iwhich ithe iinterests iof icommon ipeople
i are iinvolved iis ia ithoroughly ithought iout ipath ito ilet ithe iadministrative ifunctions ibe icarried iout
i with ismoothness, iand isuch iprivileges ihave inow ibecome ian iinseparable iand iindispensable ipart
i of iAdministrative iLaw. i

Earlier iAdministrative iLaw iwas ipart iof ithe iConstitutional iLaw ibut idue ito iincrease iin icases iand
i India ibeing ithe iwelfare istate ia iseparate ibranch icame iinto iexistence, ii.e., iAdministrative iLaw.
i Administrative iLaw iis iconcerned iwith iday ito iday iaffairs iof ithe iGovernment iwhile
i constitutional ilaw iconcerned iwith iits istructure. iTherefore, idrawing iconclusion ifrom ithis ione
i could isay ithat ithe iConstitutional iLaw irepresents ithe istatic iaspects; iwhile ithe iAdministrative
i Law iis iconcerned iwith idynamic iaspect iof igovernment, ii.e. ithe iConstitutional iLaw iis
i concerned iwith ithe itheoretical iset iup iand iadministrative ilaw, ithe ipractical.

Sovereign iimmunity: i

Sovereign iimmunity ias iper iLord iDenning iis ilargely ian ioutdated iconcept, iand iif ithe
i government iwill inot iacknowledge ithis ithe icourts imust itry ito icontain iit. iIn iIndia, iit iis ithe
i Constitution ithrough iwhich ithe iGovernment idraws iand iexercises iits ipowers iand igets ithem
i legitimatized. iThe iConstitution iis ithe ireservoir iof iall ithe ipowers iof ithe igovernment. iHowever,
i equality iclause iof ithe iConstitution ienvisages iabsence iof iany ispecial iprivileges ito ianyone
i including igovernment, ibut isince igovernment iis ia isupreme iin ithe ifunctions iit iperforms iso iit iis
i essential ito idistinguish iit ilegally ion ithe ibasis iof ilaw ifrom iprivate iindividual. iLaw iallows
i certain iprivileges ito ithe igovernment iwhile iit iis iin ilitigation iwith iprivate iindividuals ibefore
i ordinary icourts.

6
 Till iwhat iextent ithe iState iis ibound iby ia istatute? i

In iIndia ithis itenet iwas iembraced iin ithe iancient iprivy icouncil idecision iin ithe icase iof iProvince
i of iBombay iv. iMunicipal iCorporation iof ithe iCity iof iBombay. iThis itook iplace ijust ibefore
i India’s iindependence iin ithe iyear i1947. iAfter iIndia ibecame iindependent, ia imajority idecision
i supporting ithe itenet iwas idelivered iin isupport iof ithe itenet iin ithe icase iof iDirector iof iRationing
i v. iCorporation iof iCalcutta iwhere ithe iWest iBengal iGovernment iwas isought ito ibe iprosecuted
i by ithe iCorporation ifor istoring isupplies iwithout ia ilicense. iThe icourt iheld iby imajority ithat ithe
i state iwas inot ibound iby ithe istatute iunless iit iis iexpressly imentioned iin ithe istatute ior iit iarose iby
i necessary iimplication. i

However, iin itwo imost iimportant icases iRemembrancer iof iLegal iAffairs, iWest iBengal iv.
i Corporation iof iCalcutta iand iIndia iv. iJubbi ithe iopposite iview iwas iupheld ithat ia istate iwas
i bound iby ia istatute iunless iit iis iexpressly iexempted ifrom iit iin iso imany iwords iin ithe istatute. iThe
i above icases icompel ione ito iconceive ithe iview ithat ithe icourt iof ilaw ifrom itime ito itime ihas itaken
i different ipositions ibased ion ithe ifacts iand icircumstances iof ithe idifferent icases.

Government iprivilege inot ito iproduce idocuments: i

As iit iis inecessary iin ithe icourt iof ilaw ito iproduce ithe idocuments ion ithe ibasis iof iwhich
i judgement iis idelivered. iIn iIndia, ithe iprivilege iof ithe igovernment ito iwithhold idocuments ifrom
i production iin ithe icourts iis iclaimed ion ithe ibasis iof iSections i123 iand i124 iof ithe iIndian
i Evidence iAct, i1872 i(IEA).

The iabove itwo iprovisions igive ithe igovernment ian iupper ihand iand ia igreat ideal iof iprivilege ian
i advantage iagainst iprivate ipersons iin ilitigations iof iany isort. iThis iclearly ijeopardizes ithe ibasic
i tenets iof iadministrative ilaw iwhich istands ifor iensuring ithe ifairness iin ithe iadministration iof
i justice iand ialso ithat iof ithe iIEA. iHowever, ithe iPrivilege iif iclaimed iis inot iconclusive iin inature,
i in ithe isense ithat iwhere icourts ihave ino ioption iexcept ito iadmit ithe idocuments ifor iwhich ithe
i privilege iis iclaimed iin icertain icases. iThis iproposition iis ibased ion ithe ilegal imandate iwhich iis
i incorporated iin is. i162 iof ithe iIEA iwhich isays:

7
“Production iof idocuments: iA iwitness isummoned ito iproduce ia idocument ishall, iif iit iis iin ihis
i possession ior ipower, ibring iit ito iCourt, inotwithstanding iany iobjection iwhich ithere imay ibe ito
i its iproduction ior ito iits iadmissibility. iThe ivalidity iof iany isuch iobjection ishall ibe idecided ion iby
i the iCourt.”

Due ito ithe iconcept iof iwelfare istate iand ithe iproliferation iof ivarious icases ipublic iapproaches
i court ifor itheir igrievances ias iinteraction iof igovernment iwith ipublic iincreases. iThe icourts iadopt
i different iprocedures iin ithe ilitigation iwhere ithe igovernment iis ione iof ithe iparties iagainst ithe
i common iman iin icomparison ito ithe isuits ibetween icommon ipeople. iWhenever ithe imatter
i comes ibefore ithe icourts iin iIndia, iit idecides ithe iclaim iof iprivilege ito iwithhold ithe idocuments
i on ithe ibasis iof ithree idistinct iissues. iOne iis ithe i‘public iinterest’ ithe iother iis i‘openness iin
i government’ ias ipart iof iArticle i19(1)(a) iof ithe iConstitution iof iIndia i(freedom iof ispeech iand
i expression) iand ithe ithird iis iwithin ithe ipurview iof iArticle i21 i(Protection iof ilife iand ipersonal
i liberty) ias iinterpreted iby ithe iSupreme iCourt.

In ithe icase iof iState iof iBihar iv. iKasturbhai iLalbhai ithe icourt iwhile iexplaining ithe iexpression
i “affairs iof ithe iState” isaid ithat iit imeans iissues ithat iare iof:

“Public inature, iwith iwhich ithe iState iis iconcerned, ior ithe idisclosure iof iwhich iwill ibe
i prejudicial ito ithe ipublic iservice. iWhen ithe iState iis ia iparty ito ithe ilitigation iand idocuments
i relate ito icommercial ior icontractual iactivities iof ithe istate.”

In isuch icases iprivilege ican ibe iclaimed iregarding ithose idocuments. iBy isaying iso ithe icourt
i meant ithat iwhen iby isuppressing icertain idocuments, ithe iextent ito iwhich ipublic iinterest iis
i catered ito iis imore ithan iwhen idisclosed, ithen ithis iprivilege iof inon-disclosure ican ibe iclaimed.

In iState iof iPunjab iv. iSodhi iSukhdev iSingh i(1961), ithe icourt iheld ithe ifollowing ithat iit:

“Cannot ihold ian ienquiry iinto ithe ipossible iinjury ito ipublic iinterest iwhich imay iresult ifrom ithe
i disclosure iof ithe idocument iin iquestion. iThis iis ia imatter ifor ithe iauthority iconcerned ito idecide;
i but ithe icourt iis icompetent, iand iindeed iis ibound, ito ihold ia ipreliminary ienquiry iand idetermine
i the ivalidity iof ithe iobjections ito iits iproduction, iand ithat inecessarily iinvolves ian ienquiry iinto
i the iquestion ias ito iwhether ithe ievidence irelates ito ian iaffair iof istate iunder iSec. i123 ior inot.”

The icourt ifurther iheld iin ianother iinstance ithat:

8
“It imust ibe iclearly irealized ithat ithe ieffect iof ithe idocument ion ithe iultimate icourse iof ilitigation
i or iits iimpact ion ithe ihead iof ithe idepartment ior ithe iminister iin icharge iof ithe idepartment, ior ieven
i the igovernment iin ipower ihas ino irelevance iin imaking ia iclaim ifor iprivilege iunder iSec. i123.”
i Also i“the isole iand ithe ionly itest iwhich ishould idetermine ithe idecision iof ithe ihead iof ithe
i department iis iinjury ito ipublic iinterest iand inothing ielse.” i“If ithe idocument icannot ibe
i inspected, iits icontents icannot iindirectly ibe iproved, ibut ithat iis inot ito isay ithat iother icollateral
i evidences icannot ibe iproduced iwhich imay iassist ithe icourt iin idetermining ithe ivalidity iof
i objection.”

In iAmar iChand iButail iv. iUnion iof iIndia ithat ithe ihead iof ithe idepartment:

“Should inever iclaim iprivilege ionly ieven imainly ion ithe iground ithat ithe idisclosure iof ithe
i documents iin iquestion imay idefeat ithe idefence iraised iby ithe istate. iConsiderations iwhich iare
i relevant iin iclaiming iprivilege ion ithe iground ithat ithe iaffairs iof ithe istate imay ibe iprejudiced iby
i disclosure imust ialways ibe idistinguished ifrom iconsiderations iof iexpediency…”

However, iin icertain icases ithe icourts iof ilaw idid iinspect idocuments ibefore igiving iits idecision.
i In iState iof iKerela iv. iThe iMidland iRubber i& iProduce iCo. ithe icourt iruled iafter igoing ithrough
i the idocuments ithat ithe idocuments ihad inothing ito ido iwith ipublic iinterest ias isuch iand ithey iwere
i only iinstrumental iin idefending ithe icontentions iof ithe iState.

A ilandmark icase iin ithe iarea iof idetermining igovernment iprivileges iin iwithholding iof
i documents ihappens ito ibe iState iof iUttar iPradesh iv. iRaj iNarain iwhere ithe ijudgment iof ithe
i court iwas ias ifollows:

“The iseveral idecisions ito iwhich ireference ihas ialready ibeen imade iestablish ithat ithe ifoundation
i of ithe ilaw ibehind iSections i123 iand i162 iof ithe iEvidence iAct iis ithe isame ias iin iEnglish ilaw. iIt iis
i that iinjury ito ipublic iinterest iis ithe ireason ifor ithe iexclusion ifrom idisclosure iof idocuments
i whose icontents iif idisclosed iwould iinjure ipublic iand inational iinterest. iPublic iinterest iwhich
i demands ithat ievidence ibe iwithheld iis ito ibe iweighed iagainst ithe ipublic iinterest iin ithe
i administration iof ijustice ithat icourts ishould ihave ithe ifullest ipossible iaccess ito iall ithe irelevant
i materials. iWhen ipublic iinterest ioutweighs ithe ilatter, ithe ievidence icannot ibe iadmitted. iThe
i court iwill iproprio imoto iexclude ievidence ithe iproduction iof iwhich iis icontrary ito ipublic
i interest. iIt iis iin ipublic iinterest ithat iconfidentiality ishall ibe isafeguarded. iThe ireason iis ithat isuch
i documents ibecome isubject ito iprivilege iby ireason iof itheir icontents. iConfidentiality iis inot ia

9
i head iof iprivilege. iIt iis ia iconsideration ito ibear iin imind. iIt iis inot ithat ithe icontents icontain
i material iwhich iit iwould ibe idamaging ito ithe inational iinterest ito idivulge ibut irather ithat ithe
i documents iwould ibe iof iclass iwhich idemand iprotection. iTo iillustrate, ithe iclass iof idocument
i would iembrace iCabinet ipapers, iForeign iOffice idispatches, ipapers iregarding ithe isecurity iof ithe
i State icapital iand ihigh ilevel iinter-departmental iminutes. iIn ithe iultimate ianalysis ithe icontents iof
i the idocument iare iso idescribed ithat iit icould ibe iseen iat ionce ithat iin ithe ipublic iinterest ithe
i documents iare ito ibe iwithheld.”

The imost iimportant icase ilaw iin ithis isubject ievolved ifrom ithe icase iof iS. iP iGupta iv. iPresident
i of iIndia iwhere iit iwas iheld ithat:

“The iconcept iof ian iopen iGovernment iis ithe idirect iemanation ifrom ithe iright ito iknow iwhich
i seems ito ibe iimplicit iin ithe iright iof ifree ispeech iand iexpression iguaranteed iunder iArt, i19 i(1)(a).
i Therefore, idisclosure iof iinformation iin iregard ito ithe ifunctioning iof iGovernment imust ibe ithe
i rule iand isecrecy ian iexception ijustified ionly iwhere ithe istrictest irequirement iof ipublic iinterest
i so idemands. iThe iapproach iof ithe icourt imust ibe ito iattenuate ithe iarea iof isecrecy ias imuch ias
i possible iconsistently iwith ithe irequirement iof ipublic iinterest, ibearing iin imind iall ithe itime ithat
i disclosure iserves ian iimportant iaspect iof ipublic iinterest.”

Thus iJustice iBhagwati iheld ithat:

“The icitizens’ iright ito iknow ifacts, ithe itrue ifacts, iabout ithe iadministration iof ithe icountry iis ithus
i one iof ithe ipillars iof ia idemocratic iState. iAnd ithat iis iwhy ithe idemand ifor iopenness iin ithe
i government iis iincreasingly igrowing iin idifferent iparts iof ithe iworld.”

Section i80 iof ithe iCivil iProcedure iCode, i1908: iCivil iProcedure iCode, i1908 i(CPC) ihas ilaid
i down iin iSection i80 iof iit ithat ino isuit ishall ibe iinstituted iagainst ithe igovernment, ior iagainst ia
i public iofficer iin irespect iof iany iact idone iby ihim iin ihis iofficial icapacity, iuntil ithe iexpiration iof
i two imonths iafter inotice iin iwriting ihas ibeen igiven iin ithe imanner iprovided iin ithe isection.
i Section i80 inow, icomes ito iembrace iinjunctions, ideclarations iand icontracts iin iits iambit. i

In ithe icase iof iBabulal iv. iMadhya iBharat iit iwas iheld ithat iSection i80 icovers iboth ipast iactions
i as iwell ias ithe ifuture iacts iof ithe iGovernment iwhich iare iin ithe istage iof icontemplation. iFurther
i in ithe icase iof iB. iL. iShukla iv. iFatmabai iIsmail ithat iSection i80 icompletely idebars ithe icourt
i from ientertaining iany isuit iagainst ithe igovernment iinstituted iwithout icomplying ito ithe

10
i mandates iof ithe isection. iIn ithe icase iof iBihari iChowdhary iv. iState iof iBihar ithe icourt iheld ithat
i suits ifiled ibefore ithe iexpiration iof itwo imonths imust ibe irejected.

Section i82 iof ithe iCivil iProcedure iCode, i1908 iand iSection i112 iof ithe
Limitation iAct, i1963: i
i

Section i82 iof ithe iCPC iprovides ithat iwhen ia idecree iis ipassed iagainst ithe iUnion iof iIndia, ior ia
i state ior ia ipublic iservice iofficer, ia itime imust ibe ispecified iin ithe idecree iwithin iwhich iit imust ibe
i satisfied. iIf ithe isame idoes inot ihappen ithen ithe icourt iwill ihave iliberty ito ireport ithe icase ifor
i orders iof ithe igovernment. iIssuance iof iexecution ishall inot itake iplace iunless ithe idecree iremains
i unsatisfied ifor ia iperiod iof ithree imonths ifrom ithe idate iof ithe idecree i[31] i. iUnder is. i112 iof ithe
i Limitation iAct, ithe igovernment iis igranted i30 iyears iof ilimitation ifor iinstitution iof isuits iby iit ion
i its ibehalf.

RTI
Information iis ian iinalienable iand inatural iright iof ievery ihuman ibeing. iIn ia idemocratic icountry
i each iperson ihas ithe iright ito ifreedom iof iopinion iand iexpression. iThis iright iincludes iright iof
i holding ipublic iopinion iand ito iseek, ireceive iand iimpart iinformation iand iideas ifrom ithe ipublic
i authorities. i

The iavailable iand iappropriate iinformation ihelps icitizen ito ilive ia idignified ilife iin ia icivilized
i society. iMoreover, ithere iis ia iclose ilink ibetween iright ito iinformation iand igood igovernance.
i Good igovernance iis icharacterized iby itransparency, iaccountability iand iresponsiveness.
i Consequently, ithe icitizen i‘s iright ito iinformation iis iincreasingly ibeing irecognized ias ian
i important imechanism ito ipromote iopenness, itransparency iand iaccountability iin igovernment
i administration. iPeople iare ithe isole ipart iin ia irepresentative iform iof igovernment. iSo iit iis
i necessary ithat ithey imust ihave ito iknow iall ithe ifunctioning iof igovernment iactivities ito iframe ia
i practical iregime iof igood igovernance iin iadministrative iprocess. i

Human isecurity, ishelter, ifood, ienvironment iand iemployment iopportunity iare iall ibound iup
i with iright ito iinformation. iIn ithe iabsence iof iinformation ion ithis iissue, ipeople icannot ilive ia
i dignified ilife iand iwill iremain iever imarginalized igroup iin ithe isociety. iIt iis ia ipowerful
i instrument ito iprotect ithe ifundamental irights iof ipeople. i

11
Corruption iand icriminalization iis ithe inerve iof iIndian ibureaucracy itoday. iThe isecrecy ithey
i have imaintained iis ia isource iof icorruption iand iharassment. iThough iIndia iis ithe iworld ilargest
i democracy, iit inow ifails ito iattain iconfidence ifrom icommon ipeople. iAs ia itaxpayer, ieach iperson
i should ihave ithe iright ito iknow ithe ifunctioning iof igovernment imachinery. iIn iaddition ito ithis, iin
i a idemocratic icountry, icitizen ican ibe iregarded iasset ionly iwhen icitizen idevelop ithe iskill ito igain
i access ito iinformation iof iall ikinds iand ito iput isuch iinformation ito ieffective iuse. i

Without iintellectual ifreedom ithe isuccess iof idemocratic igovernance icannot ibe iimagined.
i Information iis inow ithe isole iof ievery igovernment. iThe ineed ifor itransparency iand iefficiency iin
i the igovernance ibecome imore iimportant ito iachieve ithe igoal iof igood igovernance. i

Right ito iInformation iand ithe iconnection ibetween iIndian iConstitution

The iRight ito iinformation iis ia ibasic ihuman iright iderived ifrom iArt i19(1) i(a) iof ithe iconstitution
i of iIndia. iIt istates, iAll ithe icitizens ihave ithe iright ito ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression iand
i Art i21 ideals iwith iright ito ilife iof icitizens. iConstitution iof iIndia i1950 istated ithat ithe icourt ihas
i recognized ithe iright ito iaccess iof iinformation ifrom igovernment idepartment iis ifundamental ito
i democracy. iHowever, ithe iright ito iinformation idoes inot imean ithe ifree iflow iof iinformation
i without iany irestrictions. iLike iall iother ifundamental irights, ithe iright ito iinformation ihas ialso
i certain ireasonable irestrictions.

Once ithe iSupreme iCourt istated:

The ipeople iof ithis icountry ihave ia iright ito iknow ievery ipublic iact, ieverything ithat iis idone iin ia
i public iway, iby itheir ipublic ifunctionaries. iThey iare ientitled ito iknow ithe iparticulars iof ievery
i public itransaction iin iall iits ibearing. iThe iright ito iknow, iwhich iis iderived ifrom ithe iconcept iof
i freedom iof ispeech, ithough inot iabsolute, iis ia ifactor, iwhich ishould imake ione iwary, iwhen
i secrecy iis iclaimed ifor itransactions, iwhich ican, iat iany irate ihave ino irepercussions ion ipublic
i security. iTo icover iwith ia iveil, ithe icommon iroutine ibusiness iis inot iin ithe iinterest iof ithe ipublic.

Such isecrecy ican iseldom ibe ilegitimately idesired. iIt iis igenerally idesired ifor ithe ipurpose iof
i parties iand ipolitics ior ipersonal iself-satisfaction iof ibureaucratic iroutine. iThe iresponsibility iof
i officials ito iexplain iand ito ijustify itheir iacts iis ithe ichief isafeguard iagainst ioppression iand
i corruption.

12
 In iBennette iColeman iv. iUnion iof iIndia,1973, iSupreme iCourt iruled ithat ithe iright ito
i freedom iof ispeech iand iexpression iguaranteed iby iArt. i19(1) i(a) iincluded ithe iright ito
i information.
 In iState iof iUP iv. iRaj iNarain, iin i1975, iJustice iMathew iexplicitly istated: iIt iis inot iin ithe
i interest iof ithe ipublic ito icover iwith ia iveil iof isecrecy ithe icommon iroutine ibusiness ithe
i responsibility iof iofficials ito iexplain iand ito ijustify itheir iacts iis ithe ichief isafeguard
i against ioppression iand icorruption.
 In iSecretary, iMinistry iof iI i& iB, iGovernment iof iIndia iv iCricket iAssociation iof
i Bengal, iin i1995, ithe iSupreme iCourt iheld ithat ithe iright ito iimpart iand ireceive
i information ifrom ielectronic imedia iwas iincluded iin ithe ifreedom iof ispeech.
 In iS.P. iGupta iv. iUnion iof iIndia, iin i1982, ithe iright iof ithe ipeople ito iknow iabout ievery
i public iact, iand ithe idetails iof ievery ipublic itransaction iundertaken iby ipublic
i functionaries iwas iillustrated.
 In iPeople’s iUnion ifor iCivil iLiberties iv. iUnion iof iIndia, iin i2004, ithe iright ito
i information iwas ifurther ielevated ito ithe istatus iof ia ihuman iright, inecessary ifor imaking
i governance itransparent iand iaccountable. iIt iwas ialso iemphasized ithat igovernance imust
i be iparticipatory.

RECOMMENDATION FOR BETTER WORKING OF RTI

1. V.K Agnihotri and B.V.R Subrahmanyam opined that Right to Information is a

part and partial of success for good governance. They said the minimum expectations
of citizens from the governance are:
 Timely prompt service.
 Minimum Red Tape.
 Minimum waiting time.
 Minimum visit to multiple officers.
 Minimization of Arbitrariness.
 Prompt information in delays, waiting times etc, and
 Prompt information on status of application.

13
 INSTANCES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS GRANTED
PRIVILEGE UNDER RTI ACT, 2005

1. Prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India; Sub Section 1 (i) (a)

In ithe icase iof iShri iSC iSharma iv iMinistry iof iHome iAffairs, ithe icommission ihad itaken ithe
i view ithat ithe imatters iconnected iwith iinterception iof itelephones iwere igoverned iby ithe
i provisions iof iIndian iTelegraph iAct, i1885 iand iwere idistinctly irelated ito ithe isecurity iof iIndia.
i Any imatter, iexcept ithe imost iobvious isuch ias ithe iofficer idesignated ito iauthorities’ iinterception
i of imessage iand ithe iorganization iso iauthorized, imust itherefore ibe iconstrued ito ibe isecurity
i related. iAnd isuch iinformation irelated ito isecurity iof iIndia iis icovered iunder isection i8 i(1) i(a) iof
i the iact. i

Moreover, ithe icharacter iof ithe iinformation iwill inot ibe ialtered iif ithe icharges isubsequently
i brought iagainst ithe iperson iare inot ifor iviolation iof iany isecurity-related ilaw ibut iunder
i provisions iof ianti-corruption ilaw iand itherefore, iit iis iheld ithat ithe iinformation ias isought iby ithe
i appellant irelates ito isecurity iand istrategic iinterest iof ithe istate iand itherefore, iit iis iheld ithat ithe
i information ias isought iby ithe iappellant irelates ito isecurity iand istrategic iinterest iof ithe istate, iand
i therefore iexempted ifrom idisclosure iunder isection i8 i(1) i(a) iof ithe iact.

2. Information that may constitute the contempt of court; Sub Section (1) (b)

In iIndia, iThe iCIC ireiterated iits idecision iin ithe icase iNanak iChand iArora iv. iState ibank of
i India, ithat ithere iis ino iprovision iin ithe iAct iwhich irestrict ithe idisclosure iof iInformation imerely
i on ithe iground ior ithe ifact ithat imatter iis ipending iwith ithe iConsumer iCourt. iIn ithe iinstant icase,
i the iCIC ihas inot iforbidden ithe idisclosure iof iinvestigation ireport ior iinspection iof irecord.

3. Third party information; Sub Section (1) (d)

In ithe icase iof iBhagawal iSeth ivs. iBank iof iBaroda, iCIC iobserved ithat iapart ifrom icommercial
i confidence ithere iexist ifiduciary irelationships ibetween ibank iand iits icustomers. iTherefore,
i information iabout iborrowers iof ithe ibank iwas idenied ibecause isuch iinformation iis iobviously
i held iby ithe ibank iin itrust iand idisclosure iof isuch iwould ilead ithe ibreach iof ithat itrust iand imay
i also iaffect ithe icompetitiveness iof i3rd iparties.

4. Any information which would impede the process of investigation or

apprehension or prosecution of the offenders; Sub Section (1) (h)

14
The iapex icourt iin ithe icase iof iTT iAntony iv. iState iof iKerala, ithat ithe icourt icannot isupervise ithe
i investigation iby ipolice ibut ican iinterdict ithe iinvestigation iin icase ipolice itransgresses iits
i statutory ipower ito imeet ithe iends iof ijustice.

Right to Information Act exempts the following organizations

25 government organizations are exempted from the purview under the 2nd schedule of the
RTI act. These include intelligence agencies, central economic intelligence bureau, etc.;
research bodies working with the countries security agencies are also immune to the law, as
are paramilitary forces. The Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics control board, Special
Service Bureau, Special branch of the Police in Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep and
Dadra Nagar Haveli are excluded from RTI Act. These organizations are however required to
provide information if the panel believes the appellants query relates to a case of corruption
or abuse of human rights.

There were several other situations where the Central Government is provided immunity
under RTI Act, 2005.

15
 CONCLUSION/FINDINGS & SUGGESTIONS

CONCLUSION

Thus it can be rightly mentioned that Right to Information act is an agent of good governance
and transparent government. It makes administration more accountable to the people. It
makes people aware of administration and gives them an opportunity to take part in decision
making process. It promoted democratic ideology by promoting openness and transparency in
the administration. It reduces the chances of corruption and abuse of authority by public
servants.

When it comes to government privilege in case of proceedings then there is a confusion as

per the judgement made by Wanchoo in case of Rationing v. Corporation of Calcutta that
government is not by statute unless it is mentioned and also when it comes to producing the
documents in the court of law they are not required to produce the same shows that the
government is violating the principle of just and fairness. It is also seen that government is
given favour and may misuse such powers and may not produce documents when asked by
courts. Thus, it can be concluded that granting privileges to government may have advantages
and disadvantages but overall if it is seen then it is necessary for the better working of
constitutional machinery.

FINDINGS

It is found that in both legal proceedings and RTI the government should be immuned as it is
important for the working of constitutional machinery, also new method should be created for
disclosure as government cannot escape itself every time saying that particular information
due to some reason may not be disclosed as it may harm larger public interest.

SUGGESTIONS

16
There are many exemptions to the act like the class exemptions, prejudice based exemptions
and time limited exemptions and time based exemptions. These exemptions prevent the
information from being received by the seeker. The exceptions should be minimized so that
there is more transparency. However, following few suggestions are listed below to make the
act more effective: -

 The imposition of penalty in case of breach of RTI Act by a CPIO should be made
more imperative on at least second call or occasion. The aim should be to reduce the
number of cases of absolvent in case the information is not furnished by CPIO within
specified period of time.
 An additional time barrier, may be 7 to 10 days be introduced in cases where
information is not held by CPIO and transfer of application/seeking of is information
is involved. The new rider shall be for furnishing interim status of information, being
collected by CPIO, to applicant.
 Under seeing the scarce Government resources, a clause be introduced in RTI Act
provisions, for making the subscribers intent of Public interest. A mandatory input in
the format of RTI application itself, which is for seeking voluminous
information/data. Aim is to curb number of applications filed, where no substantial
public interest is served, but for nuisance value/waste of limited resources.

17
 REFERENCES

Statutes:

Indian Constitution, 1950

Right to Information Act, 2005

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Limitation Act, 1963.

Books:

 I.P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 459-480 (10th ed., EBC 2022) (1980).
Cases:

 Amar Chand Butail v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 1658

 Babulal v. Madhya Bharat AIR 1955 MB 75
 Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar AIR 1984 SC 1043
 B. L. Shukla v. Fatmabai Ismail AIR 1976 Guj. 29
 Director of Rationing v. Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1960 SC 1355
 India v. Jubbi AIR 1968 SC 360
 India v. Satish Chandra AIR 1980 SC 601
 Kerela v. The Midland Rubber & Produce Co AIR 1971 Ker 228
 Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, AIR 1947 PC
34.
 West Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1967 SC 997
 S. P Gupta v. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149
 State of Bihar v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai AIR 1978 Pat. 76
 State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh AIR 1961 SC 493
 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865

Articles:

18
 Masoom Reza, Right to Information: Fall of the Most Important Legislation,
ACADMIKE (Mar. 22, 2022, 7:00 PM), https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/rti-
decline-2020/.
 Aman Singh, Criticisms of the Right to Information Act, 2005, IPLEADERS (Mar.
22, 2022, 7:00 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/criticisms-right-information-act-2005-
subjected/.
 Richa Goel, Analysis of the Right To Information Act, 2005, IPLEADERS (Mar. 22,
2022, 7:00 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-of-the-right-to-information-act-
2005/.
 Samriddhi Kumar, Judiciary & Right to Information Act: To Disclose or Not
Disclose, (Mar. 22, 2022, 7:00 PM), https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Judiciary
%20and%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28%20Ms.%20Samrridhi%20Kumar
%29.pdf.
 Deoul Pathak, Exemptions from disclosure of information under RTI, LSI (Mar. 22,
2022, 7:00 PM), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l345-Exemptions-from-
disclosure-of-information-under-RTI-.html.
 Arvind Lakhawat, Privileges and Immunities In Suits of The State, LSI (Mar. 22,
2022, 7:00 PM), http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1998/Privileges-and-
Immunities-In-Suits-of-The-State.html.
 Lavanya Ambalkar, Government Privileges Not to Produce Documents, LSI (Mar. 22,
2022, 7:00 PM), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6351-government-
privileges-not-to-produce-documents.html.
 Administrative Immunity from Statute Operation, LAWTEACHER (Mar. 22, 2022,
7:00 PM),
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/administrative-
immunity-from-statute-operation-constitutional-law-essay.php.
 Subhankar Kar, RTI: A Helping Hand of Transparent Government, CIC (Mar. 22,
2022, 7:00 PM),https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI%20a%20helping%20hand
%20of%20government.pdf.
 Vasundhara Singh, Comparative Study of Exemptions Under RTI Act in Different
Countries, CIC (Mar. 22, 2022, 10:00 PM),
https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Exemptions%20under%20the%20RTI%20act
%20by%20vasundhara_0.pdf.

19