This article is part of the UPSC Daily Editorial Analysis, covering The Hindu editorial – " The RTI is now the ‘right to deny information’," published on 25th February, by the best UPSC coaching in Kolkata.

 

Syllabus: UPSC General Studies (GS) Paper 2: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice

 

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was introduced as a landmark legislation to enhance transparency and accountability in governance by empowering citizens to access information from public authorities. However, over time, its implementation has faced setbacks due to bureaucratic resistance, judicial rulings limiting disclosure and legislative amendments like the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act. Weak enforcement, backlog of cases and delayed appointments of information commissioners have further eroded its effectiveness. Despite these challenges, the RTI remains a vital tool for citizen empowerment and democratic accountability, necessitating public vigilance and advocacy to prevent its dilution and ensure its original intent is upheld.

 

Right to Information (RTI) is a Landmark Reform with Unmet Expectations

The introduction of the Right to Information (RTI) Act was a landmark move that empowered citizens by codifying their fundamental right to information. It was seen as a tool to curb corruption and arbitrariness. It aimed to make the citizens the watchdogs of governance. However, over time, its implementation has fallen short of expectations. And the state of democracy has not improved as anticipated.

What is Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005?

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is a landmark legislation enacted by the Parliament of India to ensure transparency and accountability in governance. It empowers Indian citizens to access information from public authorities and promotes good governance by holding authorities accountable.

Enactment and Implementation

The RTI Act was passed on 15 June 2005, received Presidential assent on 22 June 2005 and came into effect on 12 October 2005. It replaced the Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

Key Provisions of RTI Act

• Any citizen of India can request information from a public authority.
• Public authorities must respond within 30 days.
• If the information concerns life or liberty, it must be provided within 48 hours.
• Public authorities must digitize records and proactively disclose important information.

Constitutional Basis

While the RTI is not explicitly recognized as a Fundamental Right, it derives its legitimacy from:

• Article 19(1)(a): Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.
• Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Scope and Coverage

The Act extends to the entire country, covering:

• Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.
• Government-funded institutions (including private bodies receiving substantial government funding).
• Public authorities owned, controlled or financed by the government.

Exemptions

• Private bodies not substantially funded by the government are not covered.
• Certain organizations related to national security and intelligence are exempted.
• Information affecting sovereignty, integrity or security of India is restricted.

Right to Information (RTI) and Political Parties

The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that political parties are public authorities under the RTI Act. However, in 2013, an amendment was proposed to exempt political parties from the Act. As of now, political parties remain outside its scope.

Amendment to the RTI Act, 2019

The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 made significant changes, including:

• Empowering the Central Government to set the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners.
• Modifying the conditions of service of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and State Information Commissioners (SICs).

Governance and Process

Central Information Commission (CIC)

• The CIC is responsible for overseeing the RTI Act at the national level.
• Headed by the Chief Information Commissioner, appointed by the President of India.
• Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) handle RTI applications in government departments.

State Information Commissions (SICs)

• Each state has its own State Information Commission (SIC).
• Headed by the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC), appointed by the Governor.
• State Public Information Officers (SPIOs) process RTI requests at the state level.
• The CIC has no jurisdiction over SICs.

Fees and Charges

• Citizens must pay a nominal fee (through postal orders, demand drafts, or court stamps) when filing an RTI application.
• Applicants from economically weaker sections are exempted from the fee.
• Additional fees may apply for photocopies, CDs, or other formats.

Supreme Court Rulings

• On 13 November 2019, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) falls under RTI.
• In Ashwanee K. Singh’s case (2020), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that RTI is a Fundamental Right.

Digital RTI Systems

The RTI Portal (developed by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions) enables:

• Online submission of RTI applications.
• Tracking of requests.
• Access to RTI disclosures by public authorities.

The RTI Act, 2005 has been instrumental in enhancing transparency and accountability in governance. However, amendments and exemptions have raised concerns about diluting its effectiveness.

Government's Resistance and Attempts to Amend the Right to Information (RTI) Act

Shortly after its enactment, the government realized that the RTI Act transferred power from public officials to citizens. Within a year, attempts were made to amend the law to weaken its impact. However, widespread public protests forced the government to withdraw the amendments.

Erosion of the RTI mechanism through Institutional Weaknesses

Bureaucratic Control over Information Commissions

The Act established Information Commissions as the final appellate authorities. However, most information commissioners were retired bureaucrats. And many of these were reluctant to empower citizens. These positions were often treated as post-retirement sinecures, with commissioners working few hours a day.

Case Backlogs and Delays

Despite the law mandating a 30-day timeframe for providing information, no time limit was specified for Information Commissions. This led to long backlogs.  While High Court judges dispose of over 2,500 cases per year, RTI commissioners handled even fewer cases, despite the fact there is lower complexity in their working. Pendency of cases grew. Some cases took over a year to be resolved. This turned RTI from a right to information to a right to history.

Lack of Enforcement and Government Interference

The penal provisions of the RTI Act which were meant to deter non-compliance were rarely enforced. Governments further weakened RTI by delaying appointments of information commissioners. This exacerbated case backlogs and undermined the law’s effectiveness.

Judicial Interpretations Undermining RTI

Supreme Court’s Ruling in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)

The Supreme Court changed the approach to RTI in August 2011 by stating that RTI should not obstruct administration or national development. This judgment:

• The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8 of the RTI Act should not be interpreted strictly. This allowed for a more restrictive approach to disclosure.
• It warned against “indiscriminate and impractical demands”. And stated that excessive RTI requests could hamper governance.
• This judgment legitimized governmental reluctance to disclose information. It created a hostile environment for RTI users.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Case (2012) and Personal Information Debate

The Supreme Court, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC (2012), ruled that memos, show-cause notices and financial details of a public servant were personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This decision:

• Ignored whether the information was linked to a public activity or larger public interest.
• Overlooked the legislative intent behind RTI.
• Established a precedent that weakened citizen access to government-held information.

Legal Misinterpretation and Precedent Setting

• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act further amended the RTI Act, restricting access to information under the guise of privacy protection.
• Courts have continued to misinterpret statutory provisions, undermining the intent of the legislature and the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a).

Legislative Dilution of RTI through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act

• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act further amended the RTI Act. It restricted access to information under the guise of privacy protection.

• This restriction limits citizens' ability to hold public officials accountable. It erodes the transparency provisions of the original RTI Act.

• It compromises the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a).

Way Forward

To restore the original intent of RTI, citizens and the media must actively defend it. There is a need to:

• Advocate for strict enforcement of the RTI Act as originally intended.
• Oppose dilution through judicial misinterpretations and legislative amendments.
• Ensure that Information Commissions function efficiently with timely appointments and strict adherence to time limits.

• Resist any attempts to dilute RTI, as it is an essential aspect of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
• Protect the fundamental right to information to ensure that there is government accountability and transparency.

Right to Information: The Need for Citizen Action

The RTI Act was envisioned as a powerful tool for citizen empowerment and government accountability. However, bureaucratic resistance, judicial misinterpretations and legislative amendments have weakened its effectiveness. To uphold democratic transparency, citizens must remain vigilant and demand the full implementation of their right to information.

 

PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Critically analyze the challenges weakening the RTI Act, 2005 and suggest measures to strengthen it. 250 Words

 

1. How does the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 empower citizens?
   The RTI Act, 2005 empowers citizens by granting them the legal right to access information from public authorities, ensuring transparency, accountability and reduced corruption in governance.
2. What are the key exemptions under the RTI Act, 2005?
   The Act exempts information related to national security, sovereignty, intelligence agencies, cabinet discussions and personal data that does not serve public interest.
3. How has the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 affected the independence of Information Commissions?
   The 2019 amendment allows the Central Government to decide the tenure, salaries and service conditions of Information Commissioners, potentially undermining their autonomy.
4. How has the Digital Personal Data Protection Act impacted RTI?
   The Digital Personal Data Protection Act has restricted access to government-held personal data, making it harder to obtain information on public officials and government actions under RTI.
5. What challenges hinder the effective implementation of RTI?
   Challenges include bureaucratic resistance, judicial restrictions, legislative amendments, backlog of cases and delayed appointments of Information Commissioners.
6. What can citizens do to strengthen the RTI mechanism?
   Citizens must file RTI applications, oppose dilution attempts, demand transparency, push for timely Information Commission appointments and advocate for strict enforcement of the law.