Any Indian citizen may request information from public authorities under the Right To Information Act (RTI), 2005. These authorities must respond to requests within a specified time limit.
Contents
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Parliament passed the Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to empower citizens by guaranteeing accountability and openness in the government. The previous Freedom of Information Act, 2000, which lacked strong safeguards to ensure information access, was superseded by this Act. Any Indian citizen may request information from public authorities, including government agencies and organizations, under the RTI Act. These authorities must respond to requests for information promptly or within a specified time limit.
The Act went into effect on October 12, 2005, after being enacted on June 15, 2005. Since then, it has developed into a potent instrument for citizens to obtain information and demand accountability from public officials. Typically, over 4,800 RTI applications are filed every day, with more than 17.5 million applications nationwide in the first ten years alone.
EVOLUTION OF RTI ACT
A long-standing call for increased transparency in the operations of public agencies gave rise to the RTI Act. Idea of RTI in India brainchild of former PM, V.P. Singh in 1990. It was inspired by grassroots initiatives such as Rajasthan’s Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), which emphasized the value of information access in thwarting corruption and upholding social justice. The Freedom of Information Act, 2002, offered a framework for information acquisition prior to the RTI Act, but it lacked elements that were focused on citizens and had no real enforceability.
The Government of India introduced the RTI Act, which was enacted on June 15, 2005, and went into force on October 12, 2005, in recognition of the shortcomings of the previous legislation. This historic law established an easily accessible, citizen-friendly structure for information access, superseding the Freedom of Information Act of 2002.
The History
1990: Former Prime Minister V.P. Singh first proposed the idea of RTI in India.
1994: The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) began a grassroots campaign for RTI in Rajasthan. The campaign demanded information about development projects in rural Rajasthan.
1995: Social activists at the LBSNAA in Mussoorie formulated a draft act.
1996: The National Campaign for People’s RTI was formed and drafted an initial draft of the RTI law for the government.
1997: Tamil Nadu became the first state to pass an RTI law.
2002: The Freedom of Information Act was enacted by the Indian Parliament to promote transparency and accountability in administration.
2004: The Right to Information Bill was passed by both houses of Parliament.
2005: The Right to Information Act was notified in the Gazette of India and became fully operational on October 12, 2005. The Act replaced the Freedom of Information Act of 2002 and repealed the Official Secrets Act of 1923.
The RTI Act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities. It also requires public authorities to appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO) and Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) to respond to public requests within 30 days.
FOUNDER OF RTI
In the first ten years of the commencement of the act over 17,500,000 applications had been filed. In India, the organisation called Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan was instrumental in the passage of RTI Act. Aruna Roy is the mastermind behind the RTI Act 2005.
What is RTI?
The RTI Act provides citizens the legal right to access information from any public authority. It mandates all public authorities to maintain transparency by disclosing specific categories of information and responding to requests for information promptly.
Who Can Use RTI and Against Whom?
The RTI Act empowers any citizen of India to file an application seeking information. The law applies to the following entities:
- Government Bodies
- Ministries, departments, and public sector undertakings of the Central and State Governments.
- Local governing bodies such as municipal corporations, panchayats, and municipalities.
- Institutions
- Educational institutions receiving government aid or recognition.
- NGOs substantially funded by the government.
- Private Entities (Indirect Coverage)
- Private organizations perform public functions or receive government funding. Examples include entities engaged in public-private partnerships or managing essential public resources like natural gas or mining rights.
EXEMPTIONS UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
In the case of Rakesh Sanghi v. International Advanced Centre for Powder Metallurgy & New Materials, Hyderabad, the CIC ruled that the government’s authority to utilize exemptions, where appropriate, limits citizens’ freedom to seek information. No canon of openness or public interest, according to CIC, would allow research and technology institutions to share their research data or critical information without anticipating any tangible or intangible benefits from the exchange or disclosure.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) is a pivotal legislation in India that empowers citizens to access information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability in governance. However, the Act recognizes that certain information must remain confidential to protect national interests, personal privacy, and other sensitive matters.
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act specifies categories of information exempt from disclosure:
National Security and Sovereignty: Information that could negatively impact India’s sovereignty and integrity, its strategic, economic, scientific, or security interests, its ties with other nations, or instigate criminal activity.
Judicial Restrictions: Information that has been specifically prohibited from publication by a court or tribunal, or if its release could be considered contempt of court.
Parliamentary Privilege: Information that would violate the State Legislature’s or Parliament’s privilege.
Commercial Confidence and Trade Secrets: Information that, unless there is a greater public interest that warrants it, would hurt a third party’s ability to compete, such as trade secrets, intellectual property, or commercial confidence.
Fiduciary Relationships: Information that an individual in a fiduciary relationship has access to, unless disclosure is required by a greater public interest. Information obtained in confidence from foreign governments is referred to as Confidential Information from Foreign Governments.
Safety Concerns: Details that could jeopardize someone’s life or physical security or reveal the identity of the source of information provided in confidence for security or law enforcement.
Law Enforcement and Investigation: Data that would make it more difficult to investigate, apprehend, or prosecute criminals.
Cabinet Papers: These consist of minutes of meetings of secretaries, the Council of Ministers, and other officials. However, with the exception of those matters exempt under this section, decisions, justifications, and related papers must be made public after the decision is made and the matter is concluded.
Personal Information: Information pertaining to personal information that, unless there is a greater public interest that warrants publication, has no connection to any public activity or interest or that would result in an unjustified invasion of privacy. No one shall be denied access to information that Parliament or a State Legislature cannot access.
Public Interest Takes precedence
According to Section 8(2), a public authority may permit access to information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests, regardless of the Official Secrets Act of 1923 or any exemptions under Section 8(1).
Time-bound Disclosure
According to Section 8(3), the applicant must receive information about any event or topic that occurred twenty years prior to the date of the RTI request, with few exceptions. Subject to customary appeals, the Central Government’s judgment about the date from which the twenty-year period is calculated is final.
Organizations Exempt From Section 24
Except in situations involving corruption and human rights abuses, Section 24 exempts specific intelligence and security agencies listed in the Second Schedule from the RTI Act’s jurisdiction.
APPEALS AND REDRESSAL MECHANISMS
If a response to an RTI application is unsatisfactory or delayed, the applicant can pursue an appeal:
First Appeal
Filed with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within the same public authority. Must be filed within 30 days of receiving the response or from the date of non-receipt of information.
Second Appeal
Filed with the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC), depending on jurisdiction.
This must be done within 90 days of the decision by the FAA.
Judicial Remedies
High Courts and the Supreme Court can be approached for further redressal.
RTI in Practice: Businesses, Landlords, and Private Entities
The RTI Act has proven instrumental in addressing grievances and obtaining critical information:
Businesses
Citizens have used RTI to uncover irregularities in public-private partnerships. For example, seeking details of contracts awarded to private entities in infrastructure development.
Landlords and Tenants
Tenants often file RTI applications to access property tax records or building approvals related to rented properties. This ensures transparency in dealings with landlords.
Private Entities with Public Funding
NGOs and private educational institutions receiving government aid are accountable under the RTI Act.
Landmark Judgments on RTI
- Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): Established the right to information as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
- CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): Clarified that only information held by a public authority can be accessed, and frivolous requests should not burden the system.
- Raj Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1975): Laid the foundation for transparency, emphasizing that the public has a right to know how their money is spent.
- Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012): Highlighted the importance of protecting sensitive information while balancing public interest.
- Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission and Ors: A 2013 Supreme Court judgment
- Nazrul Islam v State of West Bengal and Ors: A 2016 Calcutta High Court judgment
- Public Information Officer, Chief Minister’s Office, Civil Secretariat Govt. of U.P. v State Information Commission and Ors: A 2018 Allahabad High Court judgment
- Rajeev Suri v Delhi Development Authority and Ors: A 2021 Supreme Court judgment
- Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors: A 2023 Supreme Court judgment
- CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay: A 2011 Supreme Court judgment
- Chief Information Commissioner Vs. State of Manipur: A 2012 Supreme Court judgment
- Inst. Of Chartered Accountants Vs Shaunak H. Satya: A 2011 Supreme Court judgment
- Khanpuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer: A 2010 Supreme Court judgment
- CPIO, Supreme Court Vs. Subhash Chandra Agrwal: A 2011 Supreme Court judgment
CONCLUSION
The RTI Act, which promotes accountability, transparency, and participatory governance, is a pillar of India’s democratic system. It guarantees the effective operation of public authorities and gives common people the ability to challenge individuals in positions of authority.
RTI’s implementation must be improved, nonetheless, by capacity building, awareness campaigns, and harsh sanctions for noncompliance, if it is to continue to be effective. RTI, as an instrument for empowerment and justice, keeps boosting trust in democratic institutions and giving people hope for a more open future.
An important piece of Indian law, the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), gives citizens the authority to request information from public officials, encouraging accountability and openness in government. Nonetheless, the Act acknowledges that some information must be kept private in order to safeguard individual privacy, national interests, and other sensitive matters.