Right to Information

The Right to Information (RTI) is a fundamental principle under Administrative Law that ensures transparency, accountability, and openness in the functioning of public authorities. It allows citizens to access information about the working of the government and its administrative actions, thereby acting as a powerful tool against arbitrariness, corruption, and misuse of power.

Right to Information means the right of citizens to seek, receive, and access information held by public authorities. It includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, reports, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, and data material. Right to Information is provided under Article 19 of the Constitution which is a fundamental right held in State of U. P. vs Raj Narain and also there is Right to Information Act to deal with it.

The main objective of the Right to Information Act is to empower citizens, enhance transparency and accountability in government functioning, curb corruption, and ensure that democracy genuinely serves the people. An informed citizen is naturally better positioned to monitor the workings of governance and hold the government answerable to the public. The Act marks an important milestone in enabling citizens to stay informed about governmental activities.

RTI as a part of Administrative Law

Administrative law governs the actions of the executive branch. The RTI strengthens administrative law by:

1. Controlling discretionary powers: Citizens can question the basis of administrative decisions.
2. Ensuring procedural fairness: Information about procedures and rules is made accessible.
3. Promoting good governance: It shifts administration from secrecy to openness.
4. Strengthening judicial review: Information obtained through RTI can help challenge unlawful administrative actions in courts.

Though the Right to Information is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India, it has been interpreted as part of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Key Features of RTI Act:

1. Obligation to publish information proactively (Section 4)
2. Right to access information on request (Section 6)
3. Time-bound responsePenalties for non-compliance

RTI Act, 2005:

• Establishes the practical regime for citizens to secure information.
• Applies to all public authorities.
• Information must be provided within 30 days of request.
• Sets up institutions like: Public Information Officers (PIOs), State Information Commissions, Central Information Commission (CIC)

Objectives of RTI Act

• Empower citizens to question the government.
• The act promotes transparency and accountability in the working of the government.
• The act also helps in containing corruption in the government and work for the people in a better way.
• The act envisages building better-informed citizens who would keep necessary vigil about the functioning of the government machinery.

Significance of RTI act

1. Promotes Transparency in Governance: The RTI Act mandates public authorities to proactively disclose information regarding their functioning. This ensures that the government operates in an open and transparent manner, enabling citizens to understand how decisions are made.
2. Ensures Accountability of Public Authorities: By providing citizens with the right to access information, the RTI Act ensures that public officials remain answerable to the people. This discourages corruption, misconduct, and inefficiency in public administration.
3. Empowers Citizens and Strengthens Democracy: The RTI Act is a powerful tool for empowerment as it allows individuals to access information that directly affects their lives. An informed citizenry is crucial for active participation in a democracy.
4. Combats Corruption: One of the most significant roles of the RTI Act is its ability to fight corruption. By allowing citizens to request and access government records, the Act exposes corrupt practices and enables the authorities to take corrective action.
5. Improves Efficiency and Service Delivery: The RTI Act promotes better governance by encouraging efficiency in public service delivery. As citizens can scrutinize government actions, public authorities are incentivized to act quickly, effectively, and within set guidelines. It also discourages bureaucratic red tape, delays, and unnecessary paperwork, making the administration more efficient.
6. Facilitates Social Justice: The RTI Act can be used to demand information about government policies and programs related to social welfare, education, healthcare, and employment, thereby ensuring that marginalized communities benefit from these programs.
7. Strengthens the Rule of Law: The RTI Act upholds the rule of law by providing a legal mechanism through which citizens can challenge unlawful actions or omissions by government bodies. It ensures that no authority operates outside the framework of law, as citizens can demand accountability. It acts as a check on executive and legislative powers, ensuring that the actions of the government adhere to constitutional and legal norms.

Case Laws

Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

Facts: Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Respondent) filed a Right to Information (RTI) application with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court of India, seeking: a copy of the Supreme Court’s 1997 Full Court resolution; information on asset declarations filed by Supreme Court judges; and whether High Court judges submit asset declarations to their respective Chief Justices.The CPIO provided the 1997 resolution but denied the request for asset declaration information. The Central Information Commission (CIC), upon appeal, held that the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and directed the CPIO to disclose the requested information.The CPIO (Appellant) challenged the CIC’s directive before a single judge of the High Court, which upheld the CIC’s order. Consequently, the matter was referred to a three-judge bench of the High Court. Issue: Whether the respondent had any right to information regarding declarations by the Judges of the Supreme Court under the 1997 Resolution? If the answer to question (1) above is in the affirmative, whether CJI held the “information” in his fiduciary capacity, within the meaning of the expression used in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act? Judgment : Full Bench of the Delhi High Court determined that the Supreme Court of India qualifies as a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.The Court’s rationale was based on the following key points:Constitutional Establishment and Public Function: The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution of India, and its functions are inherently public.Broad Definition of ‘Public Authority’: Section 2(h) of the RTI Act employs a wide and inclusive definition of ‘public authority.’Judicial Independence and Transparency: Applying the RTI Act does not compromise judicial independence; rather, transparency and accountability are integral to it.Consequently, the Court upheld the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) directive, mandating the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to disclose the requested information, subject to permissible exemptions under the RTI Act. The judgment explicitly included judges’ asset declarations within the scope of disclosable information. This decision was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of India. The court dismissed the appeal.

State of U. P. vs Raj Narain

Facts: Raj Narain, a political leader, filed a petition seeking the disclosure of certain documents concerning the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Indira Gandhi, and her government’s administrative decisions. These documents were related to her official dealings and were considered to be in the public interest. The Uttar Pradesh government argued that disclosing these documents could potentially harm public interest and national security. The government claimed that the documents in question were confidential and could not be disclosed. Raj Narain challenged the withholding of these documents, stating that the people have a right to know how the government functions, especially when it involves public officeholders, and that secrecy is not in the best interest of democracy. The matter was eventually brought before the Supreme Court of India. Issue: whether the right to know and the right to access government-held information forms a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India? Judgment: The Court recognized that the right to know is inherent in the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). This includes the right of citizens to access information about the government’s functioning and decisions. An informed citizenry is necessary for the proper functioning of democracy.The Court emphasized that the right to freedom of speech and expression also implies the right to receive information, and the public has a right to access information held by the government. This reinforces the idea that democracy cannot function effectively without transparency. The Court highlighted that public interest should be the determining factor when deciding whether to disclose government documents or withhold them. It was noted that the public’s right to know should outweigh any claims of confidentiality unless there are genuine reasons such as national security or personal privacy. Secrecy or withholding of information should not be used as a means to prevent scrutiny of the government’s actions, and that transparency is crucial for public accountability. The Court criticized the tendency of government bodies to hide behind secrecy in the name of confidentiality. It was made clear that this secrecy should not be an excuse to avoid accountability or to shield illegal or corrupt actions. The judgment stressed that public authorities must act within the framework of law and must be accountable to the people they serve. The right to information helps in promoting good governance and ensuring administrative transparency.