RTI – Right To Information

Understanding RTI – Right to Information

Right to Information (RTI) is a crucial legislation enacted by the Parliament of India, establishing the framework and guidelines governing citizens’ access to information. It has superseded the previous Freedom of Information Act of 2002. The core principles of RTI include maximum disclosure, fostering open government practices, and delineating limited exceptions to information accessibility.

Key Principles of RTI:

1. Maximum Disclosure: The RTI Act promotes a culture of transparency and accountability by encouraging government authorities to disclose information proactively. This empowers citizens with ready access to relevant data and facts.
2. Open Government: RTI encourages government functionaries to fulfill their duty of providing information readily. Simultaneously, it enables citizens to acquire information without the need to navigate bureaucratic hurdles.

Historical Background of RTI:

• 1766: The world’s first Freedom of Press Act was established in Stockholm, setting an early precedent for access to information.
• 1789: The French Constitution, Declaration of Human & Civil Rights, included Article 14, granting the right to access information from those responsible to the public.
• 1946: The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution recognizing the Right to Information as a Fundamental Right.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Everyone has the right to seek, receive, and share information and ideas across various media, irrespective of borders.
• 1966: The United States enacted a federal law securing the public’s right to obtain information from federal government agencies.
• International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (1966): This covenant ensures everyone can express themselves and seek and impart information critical for their fundamental rights.

The genesis of RTI law in India began in 1986 when the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment affirming that Article 19 of the Constitution implies the Right to Information. This is because, with access to information, the freedom of speech and expression could be fully exercised by citizens.

The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) was established in 1966 with the primary goal of advocating for RTI legislation. Subsequently, the Shourie Committee was formed to draft a Freedom of Information bill in 2002. However, despite receiving Presidential approval, this bill has yet to come into effect due to political changes.

Center-State Relations

Before the central Freedom of Information (FOI) Act was passed in 2002, several states had introduced their right-to-information legislation. Tamil Nadu led the way in 1997, followed by Goa, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Delhi, Maharashtra, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir. Of these, Madhya Pradesh had initiated a law on this subject in 1997 but failed due to a lack of consent from the Centre.

Finally, in 2006, India adopted a comprehensive national RTI Act intending to ensure the provision and access to information for all. This marked a significant step towards fostering transparency and accountability in governance.

Recent Amendments to the RTI Act

1. RTI Amendment Bill 2013:

• The RTI Amendment Bill of 2013 introduced a significant change by excluding political parties from the definition of “public authorities.” This move effectively placed political parties outside the scope of the RTI Act, exempting them from its provisions.

1. Draft Provision 2017:

• Another draft provision in 2017 raised concerns by suggesting the closure of RTI cases in the event of the applicant’s death. This proposal was viewed critically as it might lead to increased threats and attacks on whistleblowers, putting their lives at risk.

1. Proposed RTI Amendment Act 2018:

• The proposed RTI Amendment Act of 2018 aimed to grant the Central government the authority to determine the tenures and salaries of both state and central information commissioners. This move was notable as the RTI Act initially provided statutory protection for these commissioners, ensuring their independence.
• The Act’s proposed change sought to replace the fixed 5-year tenure of information commissioners with a duration prescribed by the government. However, this alteration raised concerns about potentially diminishing the autonomy and independence of the Central Information Commission (CIC).

These amendments reflect the ongoing debates and discussions surrounding the RTI Act, particularly regarding its scope, applicability, and the safeguarding of whistleblowers and information commissioners. They also underscore the importance of balancing transparency with considerations of national security and individual safety.

Exploring the Right to Information Act of 2005

Key Provisions of the Act

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 encompasses several critical provisions to promote transparency and empower citizens. These provisions include:

1. Suo Motu Disclosure: Public authorities must proactively disclose information without waiting for requests.
2. Response Time: Public authorities must respond expeditiously, with a maximum response time of thirty days. However, in cases involving a petitioner’s life and liberty, information must be provided within 48 hours.
3. Appointment of Information Commissioners: The Act outlines the establishment of Information Commissions to adjudicate on RTI matters.
4. Section 4 Commitment: Section 4 of the Act reflects Parliament’s commitment to computerize and establish a network across the country, ensuring the periodic dissemination of information to the public.
5. Exemptions for National Security: Section 8 of the Act delineates exemptions from furnishing information under RTI when deemed to be in the enormous interest of national security.
6. Reasons Not Required: RTI applications do not need to provide reasons for seeking information.
7. Third-Party Information: Sharing of third-party information is restricted under Section 11.

Objectives of the RTI Act

Several overarching objectives drive the Right to Information Act:

1. Empowering Citizens: RTI empowers individuals by granting them access to information, enhancing their ability to hold authorities accountable.
2. Promoting Transparency and Accountability: It fosters transparency in government functioning and ensures that authorities are answerable for their actions.
3. Containing Corruption: By allowing citizens to scrutinize government processes, the Act plays a crucial role in curbing Corruption.
4. Enhancing Democratic Participation: RTI encourages greater participation in the democratic process by providing citizens with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions.
5. Reducing Abuse of Power: The Act acts as a check against the misuse of power by public authorities.

Is RTI a Fundamental Right?

While the Right to Information is not explicitly recognized as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution of India, it safeguards fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It implicitly upholds the fundamental rights to Freedom of Expression and Speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21. This highlights the Act’s pivotal role in reinforcing these constitutional guarantees and enabling citizens to exercise their rights effectively.

Expanding the Horizons of RTI

The Right to Information (RTI) Act casts a wide net, encompassing various facets of its scope and reach:

1. Geographical Extent: The RTI Act extends its reach across India, making it applicable and accessible to citizens nationwide.
2. Public Authority Definition: The Act defines ‘public authority’ as any entity or institution of self-government, including those established or constituted under the Constitution, created by parliamentary or state legislation, or through notification or order by the relevant Government. It also comprises bodies owned, controlled, or significantly financed by the Government and non-government organizations that receive substantial funding, either directly or indirectly, from the appropriate Government.
3. Exceptions to Disclosure: While the RTI Act upholds the citizens’ right to access information, certain exceptions exist. An application may be rejected if disclosing the information would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or its security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests or if it could incite an offense. Additionally, the Act permits the withholding of information forbidden for publication by a court or tribunal, as its disclosure might amount to contempt of court. It includes data such as trade secrets, commercial confidence, and intellectual property.
4. Information in Varied Forms: The definition of ‘information’ under the Act is broad and encompasses any material in any form, including electronic format. Moreover, the Act permits access to information related to private bodies if such access is allowed under any other applicable law.

2019 Amendment

In 2019, a necessary amendment was introduced, which significantly impacted the RTI Act:

1. Centre’s Authority: The amendment granted the Central Government the power to determine the tenures and salaries of both state and central information commissioners, which the RTI Act previously protected.
2. Change in Tenure: The Act sought to replace the fixed five-year tenure with a tenure prescribed by the Government. The rationale behind this change was rooted in the fact that while the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) held a statutory position, the conditions of their service were on par with Supreme Court judges and constitutional bodies like the Election Commission. However, this setup posed legal hindrances, as orders by Information Commissioners could be challenged in the High Court.
3. Criticism and Concerns: Critics voiced concerns that these amendments could lead to a dilution of the autonomy and independence of Information Commissioners, potentially undermining the efficacy of the RTI Act.

Influential Legal Judgments and Notable Clarifications

Over the years, the RTI Act has witnessed significant developments through legal judgments and clarifications:

1. Supreme Court Inclusion: In November 2019, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision, bringing the office of the Chief Justice of India under the purview of the RTI Act, thereby ensuring transparency in this significant institution.
2. Incorporating Private Institutions: The Central Information Commission (CIC) affirmed that private institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving over 95% of their infrastructure funding from the Government should fall within the purview of the RTI Act.
3. Political Parties Under Scrutiny: Despite the CIC’s stance that political parties should be accountable to citizens, an ongoing debate exists regarding their inclusion under the RTI Act, which stems from an amendment in 2013.
4. BCCI’s State-like Powers: In 2018, the Law Commission suggested that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) wielded powers akin to a state, primarily concerning policy formulation related to cricket, and thus should be within the ambit of the Act.
5. Disclosure of Political Candidates’ Information: The Supreme Court mandated that political candidates declare their assets and criminal cases, along with their educational backgrounds. It made it compulsory for political parties to publicize information on candidates with pending criminal cases.

The Governance of RTI in India

The implementation and oversight of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in India involves several key bodies and authorities:

1. Central Information Commission (CIC): At the apex level, the Central Information Commission is responsible for monitoring and regulating information dissemination across all central government departments and ministries. It is presided over by the Chief Information Commissioner. Within these departments and ministries, each has its own designated Public Information Officer (PIO). Notably, the CIC functions independently and is directly accountable to the President of India.
2. State Information Commissions: These commissions operate at the state level and oversee the application of RTI within various state departments and ministries. They are led by State Public Information Officers (SPIOs) and operate under the authority of the respective State Governors. It’s essential to recognize that the Central Information Commission holds no jurisdiction over State Information Commissions, emphasizing the decentralization of power.

Appellate Authorities: The RTI Act incorporates a multi-tiered grievance redressal mechanism, including Appellate Authorities. The first appeal is lodged within the public authority and is heard by an officer designated as the First Appellate Authority, typically a senior-ranking official. In an unsatisfactory response, the second appeal is directed to the Central Information Commission for resolution.

Initiating an RTI Application

The process of filing an RTI application involves several steps:

1. To request information, an application should be submitted in writing to the Central Public Information Officer or filed online at the RTI portal (https://rtionline.gov.in).
2. For applications directed towards central government departments, an application fee of Rs. 10/- should be attached as an Indian Postal Order.
3. The PIO assesses the application and may reject it if an exemption under the RTI Act covers the information requested.

The Impact of RTI

Since the enactment of the Right to Information Act in October 2005, the response from Indian citizens has been substantial. Reports indicate that approximately 3.2 crore (32 million) Indians have filed applications to date, showcasing the immense appetite for transparency and accountability in governance.

In the annual report for 2018-2019, the Central Information Commission disclosed that over 13.70 lakh (1.37 million) applications were filed, with over 64,000 being rejected under various law provisions.

RTI vs. Right to Privacy

The Right to Information and the Right to Privacy are two essential pillars in upholding citizens’ rights:

• RTI seeks to acquire information held by public authorities.
• Right to Privacy aims to safeguard personal information from unwarranted intrusion.

Both these rights protect individual liberties and act as a check against potential overreach by the State. The Supreme Court acknowledges the importance of preserving personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It asserts that personal data can be withheld if its disclosure infringes on an individual’s privacy without serving the public interest.

RTI vs. Official Secrets Act, 1923

The Official Secrets Act (OSA) dates back to British colonial times and is primarily intended to protect sensitive information by classifying certain documents as confidential. However, the scope of this act is not limited to matters of diplomacy, national security, or state secrets.

In conflict between the RTI Act and OSA, the provisions of the RTI Act take precedence. Moreover, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) recommended revising the OSA in light of the RTI Act, underlining the paramount importance of public access to information in certain circumstances.

Sections 8 and 22 of the RTI Act explicitly state that information can be accessed when it aligns with the immense public interest.

RTI and Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014

The RTI Act and the Whistleblowers Protection Act of 2014 are parallel legislation addressing transparency while protecting those who expose wrongdoing.

However, it is disheartening to note that many whistleblowers and RTI activists have faced severe consequences, including attacks and even loss of life. The main objective of the Whistleblowers Protection Act is to prevent the victimization of individuals who come forward to report misconduct.

Regrettably, even after seven years, this act has not been enforced effectively, leaving many whistleblowers vulnerable. The 2nd ARC has highlighted the necessity of comprehensive legislation to safeguard whistleblowers.

Countries such as Canada, the USA, and the UK have adopted a “one-stop shop” approach to handle and investigate whistleblower complaints, with independent agencies overseeing the implementation of these safeguards. In line with this, all Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) have been instructed to remove the details of RTI petitioners from the public domain, promoting anonymous complaints as a potential solution to protect those seeking information.

Challenges and Solutions in Implementing RTI

1. Accountability:

• Problems:
  • Ambiguity in defining accountability through government regulations.
  • Administrative hurdles, particularly due to vacancies in offices.
  • Lack of effective controls to assess the implementation’s level and efficiency.
  • A considerable backlog of cases at both national and state levels.
  • Public authorities may need to exhibit more support in proactively sharing information.
• Solutions:
  • Clearly defined roles and specific responsibilities aligned with the provisions of the RTI Act.
  • Establishment of RTI Implementation Cells at the state level to streamline operations.
  • Utilizing Information Technology for real-time monitoring and tracking of applications.
  • Institutionalizing third-party audits to enhance transparency and accountability.

2. Efficiency:

• Problems:
  • Slow implementation within stipulated timeframes.
  • Poor record management practices.
  • Inadequate training and knowledge among officers, especially Public Information Officers (PIOs).
  • Morale issues among PIOs.
• Solutions:
  • Adoption of Information Technology to restructure the information system, making it RTI-friendly.
  • Sharing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) templates with Central and State governments to streamline operations.
  • Development of common IT applications for Information Commissions (ICs) and Public Authorities.
  • Digitization of records by all public authorities, reducing the need for formal information requests.
  • Implementing e-governance practices, such as Suo Motu disclosure portals (e.g., Rajasthan Jan Soochna Portal, Punjab grievance redressal portal, my gov).

3. Awareness:

• Problems:
  • Limited utilization, primarily by Civil Society Organizations and the media.
  • Complex legal language that can be intimidating for ordinary citizens.
  • A need for more awareness, particularly among rural populations and women.
• Solutions:
  • Promoting social awareness and knowledge of citizens’ rights among the masses.
  • Conducting public awareness campaigns akin to initiatives like “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao” (Save the Girl Child, Educate the Girl Child) and consumer awareness campaigns.
  • Ensuring prominent displays of RTI-related information within Public Authority offices.
  • Leveraging Common Services Centres to facilitate RTI-related activities.

Benefits and Overall Significance of RTI

The Right to Information (RTI) Act carries immense importance for India’s democracy and governance:

• Strengthening Participatory Democracy: RTI empowers citizens to participate in democratic processes actively.
• Enhancing Accountability: The Act makes government bodies more accountable by enabling transparency.
• Improving Decision-Making: Public authorities can make more informed and efficient decisions by reducing unnecessary secrecy.
• Cultural Shift in Bureaucracy: The RTI Act instigates a change in the attitudes and practices of officials in various government offices.

The Delhi High Court aptly refers to the RTI Act as the “Sunshine Act,” emphasizing its potential to revamp governance processes, especially at the grassroots level, where citizen interaction is most extensive.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, “Information is the currency of democracy.” The RTI Act effectively embodies this principle, enriching the democratic fabric of India by providing citizens with the power of information.

---