Right to Information (hereinafter RTI) can be referred to as a tool to ‘Empower the General Masses of the country. ‘It is a surprising fact that in such a vast country like India, which is also the world’s largest democracy, there was no any prescribed way through which the general public could access the information which used to be in the public domain.  It can be clearly understood that without having related information the masses of the country would be unaware on many of the Important Issues related to the country. It is always said that the dynamics in a democracy are always on the move and are never static. In the International arena, the need to disseminate information was hugely felt and the first-ever RTI law was enacted by Sweden in 1766, motivated mainly by the parliament’s interest in access to information held by the King. The Swedish example was later followed by the US, whichenacted its first law in 1966 and then by Norway in 1970. Similarly, several western democracies enacted their own laws (France and Netherlands 1978, Australia, New Zealand and Canada 1982, Denmark 1985, Greece 1986, Austria 1987, Italy 1990).[i]

The roots of the ‘Right to Information’ can be traced back to 1990 when the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) came into existence in Rajasthan. Notably, the members of this organization were being paid less even than the minimum assured wages. In no time the resistance of the workers over the same issue became a widespread movement in no time. This movement raised famous slogans like hamara paisa, hamara hisaab (our money, our accounts) and hum janenge, hum jiyenge (we will know, we will live). There were two basic and fundamental demands of this movement namely transparentmechanism and accountability in system. Also the Honorable Supreme Court held the case of inState of U.P. v. Raj Narain[ii]that the right to information is implicit in the right to freedom of speech and expression explicitly guaranteed in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Later, the government of India passed Freedom of Information Act, 2002 but it did not come up to expectations. And eventually, the country got its exclusive ‘Right to Information Act’ in the year 2005, repealing the former act, in order to ensure the transparency and strengthen accountability.

1. Features of Right to Information ACT

The main elements of the Act are:

• The concerned information includes any mode of information in any form of record, document, email, circular, press release, contract sample or electronic data etc.The Right to information covers examination of work done, access to document which is in public domain, record and any other information which is available in electronic form. 
• It is an applaudable fact that by the unrolling of this Act, any applicant or person will be entitled to get information which he/she requests for within a span of 30 days in normal case. Another important point to be noted in this regard is that if the information requested involves the issue of Right to life and personal liberty of a person than, in such a case (special situation) the information thus requested should be provided within 2 days’ time.
• The composition and maintenance of the Central Information Commission and also the State Information Commissions respectively is the responsibility of the concerned governments both at the central and the state level. Moreover the Act has adopted a rigid approach by the provision of Imposition of fine of Rs. 250/day but also the upper cap of the fine is fixed at Rs. 25000/-. Moreover it should also be noted that no application, any lawsuit or any other proceeding can be initiated with regards to any order which is passed under the ambit of this act.
• Where it has been felt that certain area of governance has to be kept outside the purview of the RTI Act, the same have been exempted under the specific provisions envisaged under the Act. Thus, a harmonious balance has been tried between the two.[iii]
• RTI thus became a tool for promoting participatory development, strengthening democratic governance and facilitating effective delivery of socio-economic services. In the knowledge society, in which we live today, acquisition of information and new knowledge and its application have intense and pervasive impact on processes of taking informed decisions, resulting in overall productivity gains.[iv]
• Under this Act, an applicant may receive details within 30 days from the date of application in a normal case and within 48 hours of filing the application whether it is a matter of life or liberty of an individual.
• When an applicant seeks to inquire about certain information of a public authority then that authority is required to provide information upon written request or by electronic means if the information does not violate the right to privacy.

RTI thereby became a medium for fostering participatory growth, improving democratic governance, and encouraging efficient socio-economic services delivery. As a result, the Act’s objective is to encourage openness, accountability, and transparency in administration system.

2. Judicial trends

Before RTI Act, 2005,coming intoforce, the Supreme Court decided the cases relating to the informationaccording to the provisions of the constitution, one of the freedoms assured to the citizens of the country by the constitution isfreedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) of Indian constitutionhowever, it explicitly does not conceive any right to information. Also, exemptions embedded under Section 8 of the RTI Act balances right to privacy and right to information.[v]But the Supreme Court of India followed by the High Courts, inseveral landmark decisions interpreted this broad concept of guarantee of free speechto include the right to information as well.It is a part of right to freedom of speech and expression.

InC.P.I.O., Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal[vi],held that, When the RTI Act’s section 8(1)(j) is applied, the information privacy will hold sway. However, this might not be the situation, if the public interest factor seeps into this provision. Thus, when a member of the public request personal information about a public servant, such as assets declaration made by him then a distinction must be made between the personal data inherent to the position and those that are notaffect only his/her private life.

In Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer and Ors[vii], held that, thedefinition of information within the meaning of section 6 of the right to informationAct of 2005 shows that an applicant can get any information which is already inexistence and accessible to the public Authority under the law. A litigant is not permitted to inquire as to why and for what grounds the judge reached a specific judgment or verdict. A judge is not required to clarify that how he reached that very decision. The Supreme Court held that judicial officers are not bound to give their reason for judgment.

In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors.[viii],issue was whether information concerning a Public Servant’s service career, as well as records of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties, can be refused on the basis that the information requested was considered to be personal information as provided in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

In the given case, necessary orders may be passed if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority determines that the greater public interest demands the disclosure of that information, but the applicant cannot request such details as a matter of right. The Supreme Court ruled that copies of all memos, show cause notices, and orders of censure or punishment, as well as properties, income tax returns, information of gifts accepted, and other personal information kept by a public servant, are private information as specified in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, and thus, exempted and not subjected to disclosure under the RTI Act.

In case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandyopadhyay[ix],the examining body, CBSE, had claimed that it held the information in a fiduciary relationship with studentsand itwas exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. Unless the examining authority can establish that the answer books fall within the exempted category of information defined in clause (e) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the examining authority is obligated to allow a student to examine and take copy of his assessed answer books, even though doing so is prohibited by the examining authority’s examination rules. The Court decided that the evaluated answer sheets were documents that should be made available to students who requested them through RTI.

In Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI[x],held that, thefreedom of expression is one of the most exalted values of a free democraticsociety.It includes freedom of the press and is not only restricted to expression of thoughts and ideas which are accepted but also includes the right to receive information and ideas of all kinds from different sources.In fact, the right to information is reflected by freedom of expression. However, under the constitution no right in part III is absolute. It should not be overlooked that no specific value, no matter how prominent, can hold the entire responsibility of maintaining a democratic form of government. All-important values, therefore, must bequalified and balanced against other important, and often competing, values.

In caseofState Public Information Officer & Anr. v. N. Anbarasan[xi],an RTI applicant asked the Karnataka High Court for certified copies of certain rules and laws relating to the inspection and classification of writ petitions, as well as the process pursued by the Karnataka High Court.The PIO refused the information and when the case was heard by the State Information Commission, it fails to agree with the PIO and directed that the information must be made available under the RTI Act.

The Commission appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, where an Information Commissioner lodged the petition.The Court took offense to the petition being filed by an Information Commissioner and said that the Commission and Commissioner have no locus standi and was wasting public money by challenging the order. Also for filing a frivolous petition, the petitioner is saddled with cost of one lakh.

Hence it is stated that,the Indian courts held that the right to information is a fundamental and basic human right as well as basiclegal rights. However, information which is to be disclosed must be subjected to certain exemptions mentioned under Section 8of this Act, otherwise if necessary;there must be a legitimate state interest in disclosing that information.

3. RTI Amendment Act,2019

The Government of India introduced and enacted the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019, which have amended section 13, 16 and 27 of RTI Act, 2005 and seeksempower the Centre to prescribe rules regarding salaries and service conditions of Information Commissioners at central as well as state levels.

Essentially, this act brought changes under section 13 and 16 respectively. In Section 13 of the original Act mandates the term of the central Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at five years or until the age of 65, whichever is earlier. Further, their salaries, allowances and other terms of service shall be the same as that of a Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner respectively. The amendment proposes that the appointment and the salaries, allowances and other terms of service of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners would be as suchprescribed by the Central Government.

Further, Section 16 of the original Act dealt with statelevel Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners. It mandates the termof five years or 65 years of age, whichever is earlier. Further it prescribes salaries, allowances and other terms of service of the state Chief Information Commissioner as the same as that of an Election Commissioner and for the State Information Commissioners as the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government. But the amendment proposes that these appointments should be for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government and alsoit proposes that salaries, allowances and other terms of service should be as prescribed by the Central Government.

4. Conclusion

On the whole, RTI has undoubtedly given power to the general masses and has served as a tool for their empowerment. It serves as a tool to enhance the transparency and accountability and had abridged the gap between the government and the governed.Gradually, it catalyzed the process of combating corruption and hasproven to be a boon for the Indian administrative system. However, like other rights, right to information is also not an absolute right and is subjected to right to privacy of an individual. Here, the judiciary has played a crucial role in maintaining balance in a constant tug-of-war betweenright to information and right to privacy.

Besides that, the later amendment of 2019 concentrates some power in the hands of central government, which was widely criticized for interfering in the independent body of Information Commission.Overall, this act has set out to achieve its objective in order to establish good governance for the common good of the people.But still, problems like increasing government control over information commission and lack of awareness among the people are challenges which hinders the proper functioning of this act.

References:-

[i] Analyzing the Right to Information Act in India, CUTS International, available at:

http://www.cuts-international.org/cart/pdf/Analysing_the_Right_to_Information_Act_in_India.pdf (Last visited on May 11, 2021).

[ii] AIR 1975 SC 865.

[iii] Dr. Abhe Singh Yadav, Right to Information Act, 2005-An Analysis 3-4 (Central Law Publications, Prayagraj, 3rd edn., 2012).

[iv] M. M. Ansari, Right to Information and its Relationship to Good Governance and Development, available at: https://cic.gov.in/CIC-IntlEvents/IC-MA-%20LectureAtUNESCO-04122008.pdf (Last Modified Aug 24, 2016).

[v]State of Andhra Pradesh v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496.

[vi]  111 (2009) CLT 481.

[vii] AIR 2010 SC 615.

[viii]  (2013) 1 SCC 212.

[ix]  (2011) 8 SCC 497.  

[x]  (2012) 10 SCC 603.

[xi] 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 411.