Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU

Context:

The Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 was once praised for empowering citizens, now transformed into the "Right to Deny Information" due to systemic challenges, bureaucratic resistance, and judicial reinterpretations.

About RTI Act

It promotes transparency and accountability in government functioning by allowing individuals to request and receive information related to government activities, decisions, and documents.

It allows citizens to hold the government accountable for its actions; essentially giving citizens the "right to know" how the government operates. 

Any Indian citizen can file an RTI request to access information from a public authority. Citizens can request information regarding government policies, programs, projects, documents, records, and decisions, subject to certain exemptions related to national security, privacy, and confidential information. 

Process for accessing information:

A citizen needs to submit a written application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned public authority, specifying the information required. 

A nominal fee is usually required to be paid with the application. 

The PIO is obligated to provide the information within 30 days of receiving the request. 

If the PIO denies information or does not provide it within the stipulated time, the applicant can file an appeal with the designated appellate authority. 

Important bodies under the RTI Act:

• Central Information Commission (CIC): An independent body at the national level to hear appeals against decisions of PIOs in central government departments. 
• State Information Commission (SIC): Similar to CIC, but at the state level to handle appeals related to state government departments. 

Bureaucratic Resistance and Systemic Erosion

Power Shift Resistance

Within months of the Act’s implementation, the government recognized it as a transfer of power from bureaucrats to citizens. Attempts to weaken the law through amendments were abandoned after widespread protests in 2006 .

Information Commissions

Established as appellate bodies, these commissions were staffed largely by retired bureaucrats. Many treated their roles as post-retirement sinecures, working minimally and delaying decisions. While High Court judges dispose of 2,500 cases annually, commissioners handle far fewer, leading to backlogs of over a year .

Penal Provisions Unenforced

Commissioners hesitated to penalize officials for denying information, undermining accountability. Delays in appointing commissioners further worsened backlogs.

Judicial Interpretations Restricting RTI

Central Board of Secondary Education v/s Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that "indiscriminate RTI demands" could hinder administrative efficiency and national development. This broadened the scope of exemptions under Section 8, justifying information denial and labeling RTI users as obstructive.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v/s Central Information Commissioner (2012)

The SC classified a public servant’s disciplinary records and financial details as "personal information," exempt under Section 8(1)(j). The court ignored the law’s provision that information accessible to Parliament should be accessible to the public, setting a precedent for denial of critical information.

Subhash Chandra Agarwal v/s SC (2019)

Expanded the definition of "personal information" to include professional records, medical data, and asset details, further restricting transparency.

Concerns

Reduced Accountability

Officials evade scrutiny by classifying information as "personal" or citing administrative efficiency. Corruption in contracts, procurement, and subsidies becomes harder to expose.

Hindrance to Journalism

Investigative reporters rely on RTI for data on governance failures. Denial of information stifles public awareness and accountability.

Citizen Disenfranchisement

Delays and denials discourage citizens from using the Act, undermining their constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a).

Way Forward

Citizens and media must demand strict compliance to the original RTI Act, challenge restrictive interpretations, and push for reforms to ensure timely information delivery.

Government must appoint transparent, competent commissioners and enforce penalties for non-compliance.

The Supreme Court must clarify the Section 8 exemptions under the act, to prioritize public interest, not bureaucratic convenience.

Must Read Articles: 

RTI ACT 

Source: 

THE HINDU