Right to Information (RTI)

Introduction

When we talk about democratic governance, one idea stands at the very core: an informed citizen. The Right to Information (RTI) institutionalises this idea by giving citizens the legal power to ask questions and demand answers from the State.

RTI as a Fundamental Right

The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the Right to Information is a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Why is information linked to free speech?
Because speech without information is hollow. To form opinions, criticise policies, or participate meaningfully in democracy, citizens must first know how decisions are taken and how public power is exercised. Thus, access to information becomes a constitutional necessity.

Purpose of the Right to Information (RTI)

The RTI Act, 2005 is not merely a procedural law; it is a democratic empowerment tool. Its core purposes are:

• Promoting transparency in the functioning of public authorities by opening government records to public scrutiny.
• Empowering citizens by granting them a legally enforceable right to seek information from the State.
• Reducing corruption by exposing administrative decisions to public oversight, thereby increasing accountability.
• Strengthening democracy by ensuring that citizens remain informed about government policies, programmes, and decision-making processes.

In essence, RTI shifts governance from authority-centric to citizen-centric.

History and Development of the RTI Act

The idea of the Right to Information is not new; it has evolved gradually across societies.

Global Evolution

• The world’s first RTI law was enacted in Sweden in 1766, reflecting early democratic accountability.

RTI Movement in India

India’s journey towards RTI was driven as much by judicial interpretation as by grassroots activism:

• Raj Narayan vs Uttar Pradesh Government (1975):
  The Supreme Court recognised the Right to Information as implicit in Article 19, laying the constitutional foundation.
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), 1994:
  The first mass-based RTI movement, demanding transparency in rural development works.
• National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), 1996:
  Played a crucial role in drafting early RTI proposals.
• Tamil Nadu (1997):
  Became the first Indian state to enact an RTI law.
• Freedom of Information Act, 2002:
  Passed by Parliament but remained largely ineffective.
• Right to Information Act, 2005:
  Came into force on 12 October 2005, marking a turning point in India’s democratic governance.

Salient Features of the RTI Act, 2005

1. Rights Provided Under the Act

• Every citizen can request information from public authorities.
• Section 4 mandates:
  • Proper record maintenance.
  • Proactive disclosure of key information to reduce the need for formal RTI applications.

2. Institutional Framework

• Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) oversee implementation.
• Public Information Officers (PIOs) are appointed at central and state levels to supply information and handle RTI requests.

3. Applicability

The Act applies to:

• All public authorities established by the Constitution, laws, or government notifications.
• NGOs and organisations receiving substantial government funding, directly or indirectly.

4. Timely Response

• Information must be provided within 30 days.
• In cases involving a third party, the limit extends to 45 days.

5. Provision for Appeal

• First appeal: Departmental Appellate Authority.
• Second appeal: Central or State Information Commission if the first appeal is unsatisfactory.

6. Disclosure Obligations

Public authorities must disclose information related to:

• Organisational structure
• Functions and duties
• Decision-making processes
• Public schemes and expenditures

7. Type of Information That Can Be Requested (Section 2(f))

RTI covers a wide range of information, including:

• Records, documents, memos, e-mails
• Opinions, circulars, press releases
• Contracts, log books, and electronic data
• Information relating to private bodies, if accessible by a public authority under any law

8. Exemptions Under Section 8

While promoting transparency, the Act recognises legitimate limits. Information may be exempt if it affects:

• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the State
• Relations with foreign States
• Information leading to incitement of an offence
• Certain matters protected under the Official Secrets Act, 1923
  However, Section 8(2) allows disclosure if public interest outweighs the harm.

9. Jurisdiction

• Lower courts cannot entertain RTI-related disputes.
• Writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 remains unaffected, preserving constitutional remedies.

10. Whistleblower Protection

• Safeguards the identity of whistleblowers.
• Penalises harm caused to individuals exposing corruption or wrongdoing.
• Encourages ethical governance and internal accountability.

Definition of “Public Authority” under RTI Act

“Public authority” means any authority, body, or institution of self-government established or constituted:

• By or under the Constitution
• By any law made by Parliament or State Legislature
• By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government

It also includes any → Body owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government

Significance of the RTI Act, 2005

The RTI Act has transformed Indian governance in tangible ways:

• Empowers Citizens: Enables informed participation in public affairs.
• Promotes Transparency: Section 4 disclosures reduce secrecy.
  • Example: Coalgate scam revelations led to reforms in resource allocation.
• Ensures Accountability: Citizens can monitor public expenditure.
  • Example: RTI exposed non-utilisation of MPLADS funds.
• Combats Corruption: Reveals misuse of power and administrative fraud.
  • Example: Fake job cards under MGNREGA in Rajasthan.
• Improves Policy Implementation: Citizens track scheme execution.
  • Example: Corrections in MGNREGA data after RTI queries.
• Strengthens Democracy: Creates an informed, vigilant, and engaged citizenry.

Issues and Challenges in the Implementation of RTI

Despite being one of the most progressive transparency laws in the world, the RTI Act, 2005 faces serious challenges at the level of implementation. These challenges can be broadly classified into functional, structural, procedural, awareness-related, and legal conflicts.

Functional Challenges

1. Vacancies in Information Commissions

A major institutional bottleneck is the acute shortage of Information Commissioners in both Central and State Information Commissions.

• Several posts, including Chief Information Commissioners, remain vacant.
• As of October 2024, 7 out of 29 State Information Commissions were defunct or understaffed due to vacancies, as reported by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) in its 2023–24 report.

This directly weakens enforcement of the RTI Act.

2. Backlog of Appeals and Complaints

• Over 4.05 lakh appeals and complaints were pending across 29 commissions as of June 30, 2024.
• Maharashtra alone accounts for 1.08 lakh cases.
• Six State Information Commissions, including Maharashtra and Odisha, lack a Chief Information Commissioner, which is crucial for administrative leadership.
• At the central level, 8 CIC posts are vacant, despite a backlog of 23,000 cases.

In some states, disposal of cases takes more than a year, defeating the principle of time-bound access to information.

3. Inadequate Gender Representation

• Since 2005, only about 9% of Information Commissioners have been women.
• This reflects poor inclusiveness and lack of diversity in transparency institutions.

4. Dysfunctionality of Commissions

• Due to prolonged vacancies and administrative neglect:
  • 4 out of 29 SICs are defunct
  • At least 3 remain headless, according to SNS studies.

Structural Challenges

1. Misuse of Exemptions under Section 8

• Exemptions related to national security, personal privacy, and public order are often used mechanically to deny information.
• Example: PM CARES Fund has been excluded from RTI by not being classified as a public authority, raising transparency concerns.

2. Dilution through RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019

• The 2019 amendment empowers the Central Government to decide → Tenure, Salary, Service conditions of Information Commissioners
• This raises concerns regarding institutional independence, as commissions may become executive-dependent.

Procedural Challenges

1. Bureaucratic Resistance

• Many officials hesitate to disclose information due to → Fear of scrutiny, Exposure of inefficiency, Potential corruption revelations

2. Non-Compliance by Political Parties

• Despite being declared public authorities under RTI → Major political parties have not appointed Public Information Officers (PIOs).
• This weakens transparency in electoral democracy.

3. Dependence on Subordinate Rules

• RTI implementation depends heavily on State-specific rules.
• Example → States like Tamil Nadu do not accept Indian Postal Orders (IPOs), restricting access for applicants.

Awareness and Safety-Related Challenges

1. Safety Concerns for RTI Activists

• RTI users exposing corruption face → Threats, Harassment, Physical violence
• This creates a chilling effect on transparency activism.

2. Weak Whistleblower Protection

• The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014:
  • Lacks strong enforcement mechanisms
  • Does not provide adequate protection to RTI activists
• This undermines accountability-driven disclosures.

Other Legal Challenges

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

• The Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
• It restricts access to personal information by prioritising privacy, drawing from the K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment.
• Concern → Excessive emphasis on privacy may dilute the public interest test, thereby reducing transparency.

RTI vs Legislations Restricting Disclosure of Information

While RTI promotes openness, several laws restrict information disclosure in the name of national interest.

Key Restrictive Laws

• Indian Evidence Act (Sections 123, 124, 162)
  Allows withholding documents related to state affairs.
• Atomic Energy Act, 1912
  Prohibits disclosure of classified atomic information.
• Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules
  Restrict officials from sharing official information without permission.
• Official Secrets Act (OSA), 1923
  Penalises unauthorised disclosure of confidential information.

These laws reflect the tension between transparency and confidentiality.

RTI Act and Official Secrets Act (OSA)

Background of OSA

• Enacted in 1923 during the colonial period.
• Focused on secrecy, espionage, and protection of state information.

RTI vs OSA

• Section 22 of the RTI Act provides overriding effect over OSA.
• If public interest outweighs harm, disclosure is permitted even if OSA applies.

Landmark Judicial Interventions

• The Supreme Court of India has strengthened RTI jurisprudence:
  • Rafale Deal Case: Court upheld transparency within limits.
  • 2019 Judgment: Office of the Chief Justice of India brought under RTI, enhancing judicial accountability.

Reasons for Stringent Secrecy Norms

• National Security: Prevents harm from sensitive leaks.
• Dynamic Security Challenges: Require stable and confidential decision-making.
• Limits on Free Speech: Absolute freedom does not exist in security matters.

Concerns Regarding OSA

• Subjective Interpretation: Sensitive data may be classified differently by successive governments.
• Declassification Issues: India lacks a robust culture of systematic declassification.
• Balancing Act: Officials struggle to balance transparency with security.

OSA and 2nd ARC Recommendations

• The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) recommended:
  • Repealing the OSA
  • Replacing it with a law aligned with democratic transparency
• Reinforced by the judiciary’s pro-RTI stance in recent years.

2nd ARC Recommendations to Strengthen RTI

• Uniform RTI Fee Structure across states
• Multiple Payment Options, including postal orders
• Single Window System at district level with APIOs
• Inclusion of Major NGOs receiving ₹1 crore or more in government funding
• Filtering Frivolous Applications with appellate approval

Way Forward

To revitalise RTI as a governance tool, the following steps are essential:

• Implement SNS and CES recommendations on commission performance
• Fill vacancies in CICs and SICs promptly
• Enhance public awareness, especially in rural and marginalised areas
• Ensure protection of RTI activists
• Strengthen Whistleblowers Protection Act
• Improve record management through digitisation and PIO training
• Preserve autonomy of Information Commissions and conduct performance audits, as recommended by the Comptroller and Auditor General

Concluding Lines

The challenge before India is not whether transparency is needed—but how to balance transparency with legitimate secrecy. The future of RTI depends on institutional autonomy, citizen safety, judicial vigilance, and political will.

RTI vs Right to Privacy

The Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy are both recognised as fundamental rights in India. However, in certain situations, these rights come into conflict.

Key Differences

• RTI promotes transparency and enables access to government-held information. Certain personal data may be exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
• Right to Privacy protects personal and sensitive information such as medical, financial, and biometric data.

Points of Conflict

• Personal Information:
  RTI requests seeking personal information may conflict with privacy rights. Disclosure is permitted only when public interest outweighs privacy concerns.
• Public Interest vs Privacy:
  Information related to public officials in discharge of public duties may be disclosed, while personal information unrelated to public functions remains protected.

Legal Balance

• The Supreme Court has held that:
  • The Right to Privacy is not absolute and may be restricted in the interest of public good.
  • RTI also contains exceptions to protect personal privacy.

Recent Developments

• The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 strengthens personal data protection and impacts how public authorities handle RTI requests involving personal information.

Judiciary under the Ambit of the Right to Information (RTI)

1. CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2009)
   • The Central Information Commission held that the Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the RTI Act.
2. Secretary-General, Supreme Court vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)
   • The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court judgment, confirming that the Office of the CJI is subject to RTI.
3. Anil Kumar vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2010)
   • The High Court ruled that High Courts are public authorities under RTI, reinforcing judicial transparency and accountability.

Corruption Perceptions Index 2024

India ranked 96^th in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for 2024, down from 93^rd in 2023, with a score of 38, a decline from 39 in 2023. 

• CPI: Published annually by the non-governmental organization Transparency International since 1995.
  • It ranks 180 countries based on perceived levels of public sector corruption, using a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). 
  • Denmark topped the CPI 2024 as the least corrupt nation, followed by Finland and Singapore. Among India’s neighbours, Pakistan (135), Sri Lanka (121), and Bangladesh (149) ranked poorly, while China stood at 76. 
  • While 32 countries have significantly reduced their corruption levels since 2012, 148 countries have either stagnated or worsened during the same period, highlighting the ongoing challenge. 
• According to the Transparency International, Corruption hampers climate action by misusing funds meant for mitigation and adaptation, with fossil-fuel interests obstructing policies.
  • It also links to declining democracy, instability, and human rights violations, necessitating urgent global action

RTI Amendment Act, 2019

Key Provisions

• Term and Appointment
  • Central government empowered to determine tenure of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs), removing the fixed five-year term.
• Salary Determination
  • Earlier linked to CEC, ECs, and State Chief Secretaries.
  • Amendment allows central government to prescribe salary, allowances, and service conditions.
• The RTI Act does not envisage the Information Commission as a constitutional body.
• Excessive centralisation has raised concerns over the autonomy of the CIC.

Impact on Autonomy and Independence

Negative Impacts

• Increased Executive Influence → Control over tenure affects impartiality of commissioners.
• Reduced Public Trust → Perceived lack of independence discourages citizens from filing RTIs.
• Erosion of Federalism → State Information Commissions lose autonomy due to central oversight.

Positive Impacts

• Administrative Flexibility → Enables government to adjust tenure and salary based on governance needs.
• Financial Prudence → Decoupling from Election Commission salaries allows fiscally sustainable administration.
• Stronger Executive Coordination → Central oversight may ensure uniformity and alignment with national governance objectives.

Major Scams Exposed through the RTI Act

1. Adarsh Housing Society Scam
   • RTI exposed misuse of authority by politicians, bureaucrats, and military officials.
   • Flats were allotted at below-market rates.
   • Led to the resignation of the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra.
2. 2G Spectrum Scam
   • RTI revealed irregularities in telecom license allocation under Telecom Minister A. Raja.
   • Licenses were issued at undervalued prices.
   • Estimated notional loss: ₹1.76 lakh crore to the exchequer.
3. Vedanta University Land Acquisition Case
   • RTI disclosures showed denial of fair hearing to affected landowners in Odisha.
   • Violations of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 were exposed.
   • Information aided legal challenges against the project.