RTI: AN EXCEPTION TO CONCEPTS OF LOCUS STANDI AND PUBLIC INTEREST

Kirti goyal

Awareness is a process of becoming fully conscious. Awareness can trickle into the corners of
your mind slowly, as you clean out the cobwebs, or it can dawn suddenly the moment you
become cognizant of your rights and begin to see yourself objectively.

Introduction

Mahatma Gandhi had stated, "The Real Swaraj will come not by the securing of power by a
couple however by the procurement of limit by all to oppose authority when mishandled." In an
equitable nation like our own, each resident has an option to recognize what the administration
and the open specialists are doing. In a vote based nation like our own, the administration and the
open specialists have not been vested with liberated force. They can't go past the ambit of the
Constitution which is the preeminent tradition that must be adhered to. No individual can be
given total force in any regard without giving any restriction. The Right to Information Act, 2005
attempts to fix this. Under the RTI Act, any individual can request any data under the RTI Act
without giving any explanation nor is will undoubtedly reveal any close to home subtleties
relating to him. In spite of the fact that, there is a requirement for a change in outlook from the
disorder of state as an oppressor to the state as defender and facilitator of human bliss it doesn't
imply that there will be no examination of the accreditation of the individual requesting at all
data he needs. In the present time of globalization, nothing can be more important for such an
attitudinal change than the Right to Information-a move from the system of mystery to the
system of straightforwardness yet there ought to be a cutoff to how this change is being
achieved. In spite of the fact that the RTI Act rejects the data inside the system of Official
Secrets Act and so forth., still a great deal is left to be done to keep it from being abused.

Advancing Reasons rendering RTI more appalling

The Act arguably is one of the most important pieces of legislation, in the post independence
era, to effectuate democracy. It may be likened to a powerful beacon, which illuminates unlit
corners of state activity, and those of public authorities which impact citizens' daily lives, to
which they previously had no access. It mandates disclosure of all manner of information, and
abolishes the concept of locus standi of the information applicant; no justification for applying
(for information) is necessary.1 According to Sec. 6(2) of the RTI Act, 2005- An applicant
making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the
information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.

The right to impart and receive information is a species of the right of freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). Even, the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) if
subject to limitations under Article 19(1)(g), so why not Sec. 6(2) of the RTI Act? The main
principle behind right to information legislation is that people have a right to know about the
activities of public authorities, unless there is a good reason for them not to. This is sometimes
described as a presumption or assumption in favour of disclosure. The burden of proof falls on
the body asked for information, not the person asking for it. The person making the request does
not usually have to give an explanation for their actions, but if the information is not disclosed a
valid reason has to be given. Any citizen can file a RTI application regardless of whether the
information sought after by such an application is in furtherance of public interest or not. RTI
application can be used in a negative way to harass a public official and to demean his position.

. Moreover, there is no criterion laid down by RTI Act which determines the basis of the
rejection. The applicant has got right to appeal against rejection since PIO provides grounds for
rejection but if the application is found to be meaningless wholly, there are no sanctions in form
of fine. It is not disputable that there is a provision of fee with RTI but even that will not ensure
that all the applications filed are worth disclosing without seeing their maintainability. The
application must show at least some public interest in RTI. Considering public offices working in
the interest of public as the relevant cause, will be too vague an idea.

Moreover, the right to know in a democratic system is not a fundamental right nor a common law
right. It is pure and simple because it is statutory right and this right originates from the
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 is not very accurate to describe it as a statutory right
pure and simple. Then 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
an initial stage this right cannot be placed in the pedestal of the basic or fundamental right but
when a citizen goes to a department or organization then only such a right will take a crisis in
many cases for both citizens seeking information and authority supplying it with a rightly sharp
and sword over his head at the point of heavy penalty as punishment. Hence, the whole Act can
be judged at the point of its implementation and contemporary development wherein each citizen
is involved in plethora of information and each organization is preoccupied with abundant work
burden.

In case a person wants third party information i.e. information which relates to or has been
supplied by a third party, there is no provision under the RTI Act which makes it obligatory upon
the person requesting for the information to disclose reasons for doing so. As per Sec. 11 of the
RTI Act, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer shall, within
five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to the third party of the request and
of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third
party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be
disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision
about disclosure of information. According to Sec. 11(4), the third party is entitled to prefer an
appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act if his interest is prejudiced. The complexity could very
well be avoided if the applicant at the stage of requesting for information which relates to a third
party or has to be supplied by a third party is made to enumerate reasons for doing so. Under the
Australian Freedom of Information Act, a person seeking third party information has to provide
evidence of his authority in ask for information and if he is unable to provide authority then he
must provide for a reason as to why the information should be released to him. This has been
done to protect the interests of the third parties.

PIL and RTI

Public Interest Litigation is said to possess the potential of providing such access in the milieu
of a new ethos, in which participating sectors in the administration of justice cooperate in the
creation of a system which promises legal relief without cumbersome formality and heavy
expenditure. It was considered a boon for the ordinary citizen of the country as it helped him get
justice in a wide range of matters. PILs helped the judiciary to expand it jurisdiction at the cost
of the executive. They became the last resort for the disadvantaged people done with the futile
battle with the bureaucracy and governments. But soon PILs were being used for frivolous or
malicious reasons. Vested interests would use these to harass business rivals or scuttle any
activity not favourable to them. Bureaucrats were put in the dock for decisions not to the liking
of the vested interests. It became a tool for extortion and blackmail in the hands of mischievous
people. It took time for courts to see through all this. Soon, judges were imposing hefty penalties
on non-serious complainants and threatening them with more serious punishment. They were
unhappy that the PILs of frivolous nature were taking up a lot of the court’s time. Now people
are more careful about filing PILs.

Laying down criteria

The idea of RTI is a very noble one. It is the need of the present hour when there are scams
happening everywhere. RTI gains importance more so because India is the largest democracy in
the World. With a few alterations in the Act, it will be more foolproof and more so in public
interest. As already suggested the concept of locus standi should be brought in for the reasons
discussed. The locus standi need not be proved like it is done in the case of a Public Interest
Litigation before a Court of law. The applicant has to simply write reason in say limited number
of words as to why he is asking for the information. This should not be looked into as barring
him of his right to ask questions. This is merely telling him to follow a process for enhancing the
efficiency of the whole RTI process starting from asking for information to the public official
providing the information. Next step is to create a criterion for judging whether the applications
are in public interest or not. As in the case of a PIL petition there are certain criteria, the same
thing can be done in the case of RTI too.

Next question arises as to who would decide as to whether the reasons are just or frivolous. As
the criteria are laid down in the act, the same PIO can judge the application and can admit it or
deny it. If the applicant feels that the application has been dismissed without any just cause, he
can seek appropriate remedy in the same way when the application is not processed on time. No
fine should be levied on the person seeking information even if his query turns out to be
frivolous. The denial of such a request is enough. The aim is not to punish anybody for asking
questions but it is simply to make the whole process efficient, to reduce the work load of the
PIOs and to do away with frivolous applications. These three goals are achieved if the process
suggested in the preceding paragraphs are followed.

Conclusion

RTI Act in all is certainly a colossal advance in a law based set up like India to advance
straightforwardness and responsibility however it can work out at its best with some significant
changes. One of the ways can be that the PIO needs to give explanation behind non-induction
and such a letter can be tested similarly as on account of deferral by the PIO as set down in the
Act. Presentation of idea of locus standi would advance productive activities of the legislature
with ideal utilization of restricted financial assets and the fulfillment of real question of a capable
resident. In the event that an individual can show the reason which relates him and the open
office, the whole structure would be increasingly serious and as opposed to making a joke of the
framework, it will rather work to make it progressively limpid and strong.