RTI: A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BEING CONSTRICTED

THE CONTEXT: In a recent instance, the Supreme Court admonished a young lawyer for seeking municipal records under RTI without requiring reasons. The Madras High Court’s controversial decision requiring applicants to provide reasons for seeking information, which contradicts Section 6(2) of the Act, has revived concerns about unjustly diluting citizens’ fundamental right to information.

THE BACKGROUND: The concept of RTI in India emerged from the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The journey towards RTI began in the 1970s, rooted in grassroots movements demanding transparency in government functioning. Key milestones in the origin of RTI:

• • Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) movement in Rajasthan (1990s)
  • Press Council of India’s draft RTI law (1996)
  • National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) formation (1996)

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: Two pivotal Supreme Court judgments laid the foundation for RTI in India:

• • State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975): Justice K.K. Mathew’s observation was groundbreaking: “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 was done in a public way by their public functionaries.”
  • P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): This case, also known as the Judges’ Transfer Case, further reinforced the citizens’ right to know. The court held that the right to information is implicit in the right to free speech and expression. It established that RTI is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Transparency is essential for democracy, and public interest often outweighs official secrecy.

ENACTMENT OF RTI ACT, 2005:

KEY PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT:

• • Section 6(2): It stipulates that an applicant seeking information is not required to provide any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those necessary for contacting them. This provision removes barriers to information access and prevents arbitrary rejection of RTI applications.
  • Section 4(1)(a) and (b): It requires public authorities to maintain records duly cataloged and indexed for easy accessibility. Information should be disseminated widely and in forms easily accessible to the public. This includes details of organization, functions, duties, powers of officers, norms, rules, regulations, etc.
  • Exemptions under Sections 8 and 9: Section 8(1) lists specific exempt grounds, including national security, commercial confidence, and personal information. Section 9 deals with infringement of copyright. The Delhi High Court, in Union of India v. CIC (2009), held that even exempted information can be disclosed if the public interest outweighs the protected interest. The public authority has the burden of proving that information falls under exemptions.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS:

• • Bhagat Singh case (2007): In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner (2007), the Delhi High Court adopted a liberal approach to RTI. Access to information is the rule under Section 3 of the Act, and exemptions under Section 8 are the exceptions. The mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information.
    • Fundamental right: The court reaffirmed RTI as a fundamental right derived from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
    • Liberal construction: Justice Ravindra Bhat emphasized that the RTI Act, being a rights-based enactment akin to a welfare measure, should receive a liberal interpretation.
    • Strict interpretation of exemptions: The court held that exemptions under Section 8 should be construed strictly and narrowly.
    • Burden of proof: The onus is on the public authority to show satisfactory reasons for withholding information.
    • Overriding effect: The court highlighted Section 22 of the RTI Act, which gives it overriding power over other laws.
  • Aditya Bandopadhyay vs. CBSE (2011): The Supreme Court adopted a more restrictive approach in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information would be counterproductive. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused to become a tool to obstruct national development and integration.
    • Balancing interests: The court emphasized balancing the right to information with other public interests, such as confidentiality and efficient governance.
    • Misuse concerns: It raised concerns about the potential misuse of RTI and its impact on administrative efficiency.
    • Fiduciary relationship: The court introduced the concept of fiduciary relationship in the context of RTI, particularly concerning examination bodies.
    • Selective disclosure: The judgment suggested that information unrelated to transparency and accountability might not need to be disclosed.

THE CHALLENGES:

• • Demand for Reasons from Applicants: Despite Section 6(2) of the RTI Act explicitly stating that applicants need not provide reasons for seeking information, many Public Information Officers (PIOs) continue to demand justifications. The Madras High Court’s controversial ruling requiring applicants to give reasons has further complicated this issue.
  • Misuse of Exemption Clauses: Overuse of Section 8(1)(a) related to national security. Broad interpretation of “fiduciary relationship” under Section 8(1)(e). Misapplication of Section 8(1)(j) concerning personal information.
  • Bureaucratic Resistance: Information is often delayed beyond the 30-day limit. Incomplete or irrelevant information is provided to discourage applicants. A lack of proper record management also makes information retrieval difficult. As per a study by RaaG, about 50% of RTI queries relate to information that should be available suo moto under Section 4 of the Act.
  • Safety Concerns for RTI Activists: According to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), 74 RTI activists have lost their lives since 2005. 68 of these deaths were murders, while 6 were suicides. An additional 164 activists have reported assaults, while 180 have been threatened. This situation has created an atmosphere of fear, deterring many from using RTI to expose corruption and malpractices.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• • Reaffirm the Fundamental Status of RTI: A clear Supreme Court clarification or larger bench reference could address ambiguities arising from these judgments, ensuring that the fundamental right to information is not diluted. Exemptions under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act were deliberately narrow and specific. Courts and Information Commissions must construe them strictly, as noted by Justice Ravindra Bhat in the Bhagat Singh case (2007).
  • Strengthen Section 4 Compliance: In line with the Digital India initiative, Government offices should ensure digital record-keeping and real-time website updating. This reduces physical file tracing and expedites RTI response. Conduct annual independent audits of proactive disclosures across ministries and departments (as recommended by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2006).
  • Streamline Institutional Framework: Establish e-grievance portals and fast-track courts/benches for RTI appeals, ensuring speedy disposal. Clear guidelines on record management and RTI compliance should be part of foundation training for all civil services entrants (LBSNAA, state ATIs).
  • Protect and Empower RTI Users and Activists: The 2nd ARC recommended exploring anonymous or third-party filing for high-risk queries. Pilot these mechanisms where risk is highest, ensuring the safety of whistle-blowers.
  • Foster Public Awareness and Responsible Usage: Simple, user-friendly pamphlets or online tutorials clarifying how to file RTI requests effectively, and the do’s and don’ts to avoid frivolous or vexatious requests. Local language materials to bridge linguistic gaps in rural and remote regions. Citizen feedback on official websites about the quality and timeliness of RTI responses can help identify gaps.
  • Balancing RTI with Administrative Efficiency and National Interests: Ensure that all records are systematically maintained in compliance with the Public Records Act, 1993, enabling quick retrieval. Additional ‘confidentiality’ norms must be established through legislative amendments or well-defined rules rather than vague references to “sensitive” information. Where possible, adopt the “Open by Default” principle (inspired by global best practices like the UK’s Freedom of Information Act). This reduces bureaucratic friction and fosters trust.

THE CONCLUSION:

The Right to Information, rooted in Article 19(1)(a) and enforced through the RTI Act of 2005, is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. While misuse and administrative burden concerns are valid, they must be balanced against the fundamental right and the Constitutional vision of transparent governance.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss. 2020

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. “The Right to Information Act has been a transformative legislation, yet its implementation faces significant challenges.” Analyze.

SOURCE:

https://theleaflet.in/leaflet-reports/former-cji-chandrachud-confirms-the-leaflet-report-of-his-opposition-to-the-appointment-of-justice-shekhar-kumar-yadav