Context: Right to Information activists are complaining about the dilution of the RTI act.

Right To Information (RTI)

Fundamental Right: RTI is a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution.

In the case of Bennett Coleman vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court stated that “Right to information is our fundamental right falls within the purview of article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India”.

Statutory Right: The RTI has been made a statutory right through the Right to Information Act, 2005, allowing any citizen to request Government information.

Key feature of RTI 

Objective: 

The primary objective of the RTI Act is 

• To empower citizens.
• To promote transparency and accountability in government functioning.
• To combat corruption.
• To enhance democracy by making government activities and related information accessible to the public.
• To help citizens obtain information from the Government and State institutions that are not readily available in public domain.
• To identify delays in public works, shortfalls and leaks in welfare schemes, and provide crucial insights into government’s decision making.
• To allow any citizen to make requests for access to data, documents, and other information in the government’s possession.

Definition of Right to Information: As per Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, the “right to information” means the right to access information held by or under the control of any public Authority.

Public Authority: A public authority, as defined in Section 2(h), includes government bodies established by or under the Constitution or any law, as well as organizations substantially financed by the government.

Private Bodies: Only private bodies substantially funded, controlled, or owned by the government come under the purview of the RTI Act. Other private organizations can be accessed through government departments if allowed by other laws.

Public Information Officer (PIO): Each public authority must appoint a PIO responsible for handling RTI requests and providing information to citizens.

Information Covered: Information includes records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, and more. However, personal opinions cannot be sought under the RTI Act.

Rights Under the RTI Act:

• Request any information held by a public authority.
• Obtain copies of government documents.
• Inspect government works, documents, and records.
• Take notes, extracts, or certified copies of government documents or records.
• Take certified samples of government work.
• Obtain information in electronic formats.
• Seek information without the need to provide reasons for the request.

Applicability: While Section 3 of the RTI Act gives the right to all citizens to access information, Section 6 provides a broader framework for any person to seek information, making it even more inclusive.

Suo-moto furnishing of information: Section 4(2) provides for the obligation of the public authority to make efforts for providing information suomoto to the public at regular intervals using various modes of communication.

Information Request Process:

• Submit a written RTI application to the PIO.
• The PIO must respond within 30 days, providing the requested information.
• An additional period of five days is allowed in computing the period for response in the following cases:
  • When the application is received through the Assistant Public Information Officer. 
  • When the application is received by way of transfer.
• In cases concerning life or liberty, information must be provided within 48 hours.
• No reasons need to be given for seeking information.

Grounds for Refusal: The PIO can refuse information only on specific grounds mentioned in Section 8, such as national security, privacy, or breach of privilege.

Personal Data: Under section 8(1)(j) it prohibits personal data disclosure of citizens by the government, unless there is an overriding public interest in doing so.

Exempted Organizations: Certain organizations related to defense and intelligence, as specified in Section 24, are exempted from the RTI Act.

Appeals: If information is not provided or if the applicant is unsatisfied, they can file an appeal with Appellate Authority within 30 days. Further appeals can be made to the Information Commission.

Filing RTI Online: Both the Central and some state governments have online portals for filing RTI requests, simplifying the process.

Amendments by RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019

Key Issues with the implementation of the RTI Act

• DPDP Bill: The bill proposes amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI act to expand its purview and exempt all personal information from disclosure and threatens transparency and accountability regime in the country as public officials would evade accountability by invoking blanket ban on disclosing personal information.
• Rules for Implementation of the Act: The RTI Act’s implementation is dependent on subordinate Rules made by the Union Government and State Governments, for instance, the simple matter of what payment method a public authority can accept is left to the States to decide. which made effective implementation depend on the will of the government.
• Delays in Appointments: Appointments to information commissions, such as the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) like in Jharkhand, can result in significant delays in hearing appeals. This undermines citizens’ trust in the RTI framework.
• Dysfunctional Digital Space: While online RTI applications can simplify the process, not all states have functional online portals, and some government bodies may not be registered on these platforms. This creates disparities in access to information.
• Growing Dissatisfaction: Repetitive first appeals are filed suggesting growing dissatisfaction with the information provided by public officials. This dissatisfaction may stem from perceived barriers, delays, and unresponsiveness in the RTI process.
• Broader Accountability Concerns: Practices adopted by various government institutions such as
  • regulation made for payment e.g., States like Tamil Nadu do not accept Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) and 
  • Difficulty in digital filing of RTI e.g., RTIOnline portal, forces all users to enter their particulars afresh each time they file an application.
• Exemptions and Limited Applicability: The RTI Act’s limited applicability to certain entities like political parties, the judiciary, and intelligence agencies made critics argue that these exemptions limit the Act’s scope and effectiveness.
• Ambiguity in the Definition of ‘Public Authority’: The Act lacks a comprehensive and exclusive definition of ‘public authorities,’ words like substantially financed are leading to confusion.
  • Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the public instead of the government create uncertainty about their inclusion under this category. 
  • The same ambiguity applies to entities like temples funded by trusts.
• Absence of Contempt Provisions: The RTI Act lacks provisions for contempt making it challenging to enforce the orders issued by the information commission. The absence of such provisions weakens the ability to ensure compliance with the Act.
• Lack of Penalties for Appellate Authorities: While the Act specifies timeframes for providing information, there are no penalties for appellate authorities or public officers who fail to meet these deadlines. 
• Qualification of Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs): The Act does not provide clear qualifications for CPIOs, including those appointed with additional duties. Proper qualifications and training are crucial for effectively handling RTI applications and providing relevant information.
• Misuse of Information: There is concern about the misuse of information obtained through RTI requests, where individuals with malicious intentions use the Act to harass others or engage in blackmail.
• Whistleblower Protection: The RTI Act does not provide adequate protection for whistleblowers who use the Act to expose corruption and malpractices. Whistleblowers often face risks, including violence and threats, which can deter individuals from reporting wrongdoing.

Way Forward 

Recommendations Proposed by 2^nd ARC to RTI Act 

• Simplification of Procedure to File RTI Application: 
  • Availability of the officer: PIOs, because of the other responsibilities, might not be available at times increasing the waiting time of applicant leading thus process of filing requests for information needs to be made prompt and simplified.
  • Management of Record: The records should be maintained such that it is easily accessible to the authority and public, technology like blockchain can be used for this purpose.
  • Postal Application: A mechanism should be devised by which requests for information can be made possible through the post.
  • Payment Methods: 
    • The insistence by some departments to receive fees only through demand drafts and not in cash needs to be dispensed with. 
    • In addition to the existing modes of payment, appropriate governments should amend the Rules to include payment through postal orders.
    • States may be required to frame Rules regarding application fee which are in harmony with the Central Rules. It needs to be ensured that the fee itself does not become a disincentive.
• Clarity in Definition of Public Authority:
  • The lowest office in any organization which has decision-making power or is a custodian of records should be recognized as a public authority.
  • Organisations which perform functions of a public nature that are ordinarily performed by government or its agencies, and those which enjoy natural monopoly may be brought within the purview of the Act.
• Training of Officer: All government functionaries should be given at least one day’s training on the Right to Information within a year. These training programmes must be organized in a decentralized manner in every block.

• Oversight Mechanism: Through an appropriate provision made under section 30 the CIC and the SICs may be entrusted with the task of monitoring effective implementation of the Right to Information Act in all public authorities.
• Appointment of CIC and SIC: Section 12 of the Act may be amended to constitute the Selection Committee of CIC with the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India similarly Section 15 may be amended.
• Qualification: At least half of the members of the Information Commissions should be drawn from non-civil services background. Such a provision may be made in the Rules under the Act, by the Union Government, applicable to both CIC and SICs.
• Regional Offices: The CIC should establish 4 regional offices of CIC with a Commissioner heading each. Similarly regional offices of SICs should be established in larger States
• Constitution of Appellate Authority: All public authorities may be advised by the Government of India that along with the Public Information Officers they should also designate the appellate authority either under Rules or by invoking Section 30 of the Act and publish both, together.
• National Coordination Committee (NCC): NCC may be set up under the chairpersonship of the Chief Information Commissioner to serve as a national platform for effective implementation of the Act, to review the Rules and Executive orders issued by the appropriate governments under the Act.

Court Cases Related to RTI

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (2011)

This case was about the right of examinee to information of his evaluated copies from the CBSE. In this case the Supreme court held that the provisions of the RTI Act will continue to prevail over the provisions of the byelaws/rules of the examining bodies regarding all exams.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors.

In this case court was asked whether the information like movable/immovable property, assets liabilities and information with reference to the career of a public servant can be denied.

Court held that the details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a significant statutory measure for realisation of the citizen’s right to access information which promotes transparency, accountability in function discharge by public authorities. Though, right to information is considered as advancement in India it suffers from several drawbacks like impractical rules and regulations, hindrance in filing RTI etc. Which can be addressed by backing Information commission’s order by contempt provision, making RTI filing procedure user friendly, improving rules and regulation formed by the governments through debate and deliberation in respective legislative bodies.