The Right to Information Act in India Introduction 

• The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a monumental achievement in India’s democratic landscape, enabling citizens to demand transparency and accountability from the government. 
• Since its introduction in 2005, the RTI Act has been lauded for its potential to combat corruption and promote open governance. However, despite its significant impact, the full potential of the RTI Act has not yet been realized.

What is the Right to Information (RTI)?

• The Right to Information (RTI) is the fundamental right of citizens to access information about the workings of government entities, including the legislature, executive, and judiciary. 
• This right empowers people, transforming them from passive subjects into active participants in the democratic process.
•  By providing access to public records and government actions, the RTI Act promotes transparency, ensuring that the government remains accountable to its citizens.

Philosophical Basis of the Right to Information

• The philosophical foundation of the RTI Act lies in the principles of liberty, equality, and democracy. 
• Drawing from the thoughts of Aristotle, it can be argued that a true democracy thrives only when citizens have unhindered access to information about how the government operates. 
• Access to information not only shapes individuals’ political and social identities but also influences their economic opportunities. In essence, the RTI Act allows citizens to make informed choices, strengthening the democratic system.

RTI and International Recognition

• United Nations: The United Nations General Assembly, in 1946, recognized the Freedom of Information as a fundamental human right. It stressed that this right is integral to ensuring all other freedoms, laying the foundation for its global adoption.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): In line with international human rights law, the ICCPR affirmed the right to information as a legally binding obligation under Article 19, further solidifying its global importance.

Constitutional Recognition of RTI in India

• The Constitution of India does not explicitly grant a right to information. However, the Supreme Court of India (the country’s highest court) has held in several cases that the right to information is implicit in the constitutionally enshrined rights to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19 (1)(a) and right to life and liberty (Article 21). 
• Several landmark Supreme Court rulings have impacted the RTI in India:

• State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court held that the right to information is implicit in the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of Indian Constitution. 
• S.P. Gupta v. President of India (1982): The Court affirmed the public’s right to know about government activities and public transactions.
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004): The Court declared the right to information a human right, linking it to Article 21, thereby emphasizing its fundamental role in ensuring transparency and accountability.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): The Court ruled that indiscriminate RTI requests could burden administrative functioning. Critics argue that this decision discouraged information-sharing and created a negative perception of RTI users.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012): The Court held that personal information could be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, leading to a broader interpretation that makes it easier for officials to reject RTI requests.

• The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) led the first and most prominent Right to Information movement in India, starting in Rajasthan in the early 1990s. MKSS’s efforts to gain access to village records and promote administrative transparency played a pivotal role in igniting the nationwide Right to Information movement.

Significance of the RTI Act

The RTI Act has played a pivotal role in fostering a transparent, accountable, and participatory government. Some of its significant contributions include:

•  Government Transparency: The RTI has brought greater transparency to various government functions. For example, it has been instrumental in improving the transparency of the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Uttar Pradesh.
• Positive Work Culture: The RTI has facilitated a cultural shift within government offices, encouraging openness and accountability. For example, it mandates the maintenance of public records and requires government officials to share information with the public.
• Judicial Empowerment: The RTI Act has empowered the judiciary to strike down laws that undermine transparency. A recent example of this is the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which was found to violate the right to information by promoting secrecy in political funding.
• Building Democracy: The RTI empowers citizens by giving them the right to ask questions and seek answers from public authorities. This fosters greater public participation in governance and strengthens democratic values.
• Reducing Corruption: The RTI Act has been used to expose high-profile corruption scandals, such as the CWG scam and coal allocation scam, making it an essential tool for citizens to hold the government accountable.

Challenges with the RTI Act and the Roadblocks to Transparency

• • Misuse of the RTI Act for Personal or Political Gain: While the RTI Act has been lauded for promoting transparency, it has also been misused at times for personal or political purposes. 
    • In 2014, during the election season, a prominent political party in Uttar Pradesh filed numerous RTI requests seeking personal information about its opponents. These requests were often seen as politically motivated, aimed at discrediting rivals rather than promoting transparency. 
  • RTI and National Security:  Certain government functions require confidentiality for the protection of national security or public order. The RTI Act occasionally faces tension with the need to keep sensitive government operations under wraps. 
    • Requests for details about Rafale aircraft procurement or other defense contracts have been met with refusals on the grounds of national security. Revealing specifications of high-tech defense equipment could potentially expose vulnerabilities that hostile nations might exploit.

• RTI vs. Right to Privacy: Another area of conflict arises between the RTI Act and the Right to Privacy, particularly in cases where the requested information involves personal data. While the RTI Act empowers citizens to access a broad spectrum of information, it also poses risks to the privacy of individuals.

• • • In the case of the Electoral Bonds Scheme, the government defended its refusal to disclose the identity of political donors, arguing that it violated their privacy. This has sparked a debate about whether political transparency should outweigh privacy concerns, especially in the context of public interest.

•  Lack of Knowledge about RTI:  One of the most significant challenges for the RTI Act’s success is the lack of awareness, especially among marginalized communities such as women, rural populations, and SC/ST groups. Without proper knowledge, these groups are less likely to exercise their rights to seek information, reducing the overall reach of the Act.

• • • According to a report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), awareness of the RTI Act is significantly lower in rural areas, where only 12% of people are familiar with it compared to 47% in urban areas. This disparity underscores the need for broader educational campaigns to ensure that every citizen can fully benefit from the RTI Act.

• Government Resistance to Full Implementation:  The Executive’s apathy towards the RTI Act has grown in recent years, particularly through measures like the RTI Amendment Act of 2019, which reduced the powers and tenure of the Central Information Commissioners (CIC) and State Information Commissioners (SIC). These changes have led to criticism that the government is not committed to the full implementation of the RTI Act.

• • • Example: The RTI Amendment Act 2019 has been criticized for weakening the powers of Information Commissioners, with some viewing it as a deliberate move to limit the independence of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and hinder its ability to act impartially in favor of public transparency.
  • RTI’s Non-application to Political Parties:  A major gap in the RTI Act is its non-application to political parties, despite their crucial role in Indian democracy. The absence of RTI oversight on political parties makes it difficult to access crucial information about their funding, expenditure, and decision-making processes.
    • A notable example is the case of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in 2015. After the party’s rise to prominence, it faced scrutiny over the sources of its funding, particularly after it raised significant amounts of money through donations from unknown individuals. A group of citizens filed RTI requests to obtain details on the party’s financial contributions, including the identity of donors and the amounts they contributed. However, the Election Commission of India and other authorities clarified that political parties are not required to disclose donor information under the RTI Act.
  • Bureaucratic Control:  Many Information Commissioners are former bureaucrats who may be reluctant to fully embrace the spirit of transparency mandated by the RTI Act. Having worked in the system, they may continue to view their roles as post-retirement benefits rather than as independent, impartial arbiters of the public’s right to information. This undermines the effectiveness of the RTI Act.
    • A notable example of delays and lack of proactive enforcement by Information Commissioners is the case of Commr. of Police v. CIC (2016). In this case, the Central Information Commission (CIC) was criticized for failing to take strong action against the Delhi Police for not providing information about the status of investigations into complaints filed by citizens. Despite multiple RTI requests and the fact that the Delhi Police had been non-compliant, the CIC failed to take timely action, allowing the case to drag on for months. 

• Backlog and Low Case Disposal Rate: Another significant issue is the low case disposal rate within the Information Commissions. The RTI Act mandates a 30-day timeline for responding to requests, but Information Commissioners are often overwhelmed with the sheer volume of appeals and complaints. As a result, many cases go unresolved for extended periods, leading to frustrations among citizens.

• • • According to the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) annual report for 2020, over 13,000 cases were pending before the CIC. Ideally, the commissioners should be able to dispose of over 5,000 cases annually. However, this backlog results in delayed justice and reduces the efficacy of the RTI Act.

• Long Delays in Response to RTI Requests: The RTI Act mandates that information be provided within 30 days, but delays in response are common, primarily due to inefficiencies in the bureaucracy. In many instances, citizens must file multiple appeals before they receive the requested information. These delays not only cause frustration but also reduce the Act’s effectiveness in promoting transparency.

• • Example: In states like Uttar Pradesh, reports suggest that RTI requests can take up to six months to process, which is far beyond the prescribed 30-day timeline. This delay undermines the Act’s core objective of providing timely access to public information.
• Weak Enforcement:  While the RTI Act includes provisions for penalties against public authorities that deny information, enforcement remains weak. Information Commissioners rarely impose penalties on officials who refuse to provide information, leading to a lack of accountability and perpetuating the culture of secrecy within government offices.
  • An example highlighting the lack of enforcement of penalties under the RTI Act is the Central Information Commission (CIC) Annual Report for 2020. The report revealed that only 1% of the cases resulted in the imposition of penalties, despite the RTI Act providing a clear mandate for this action. 

The Way Forward for the RTI Act

• Reaffirming RTI as a Pillar of Democracy: The Supreme Court should continue to reaffirm RTI’s importance, as it did in the Electoral Bonds ruling, to strengthen democratic governance.
• Information in Local Languages: Given India’s linguistic diversity, information related to RTI should be made available in regional languages to increase its accessibility and reach.
• Public Awareness: To maximize the RTI Act’s impact, awareness campaigns must be expanded, especially among disadvantaged groups. Additionally, schools should incorporate RTI education into their curricula to promote a culture of informed citizenship.
• Bringing Political Parties Under RTI: Political parties must be brought under the purview of the RTI Act to ensure transparency in party funding and electoral processes. This would enhance democratic accountability and prevent corruption in politics.
• Strengthening the Role of Information Commissioners: The Central and State Information Commissioners should adhere to a strict code of conduct to ensure their independence from government influence and enhance their effectiveness in handling RTI requests.
• Judicial Oversight: Courts must follow Supreme Court guidelines in cases related to the CIC/SIC orders. The guidelines must ensure that orders are only quashed if they are jurisdictionally flawed or grossly erroneous, as stated in the DDA vs Skipper Construction case.