RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

In India, the Right to Information (RTI) movement was initiated at the grassroots level
during the 1990s by an organization known as the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangthan. This
initiative aimed to enhance transparency in village financial records and emerged from the
demand for minimum wages in rural areas. Although the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangthan
represented a struggle of the rural poor, it garnered attention and support from a diverse array
of media, legal professionals, academics, and even bureaucrats and legislators, many of
whom came together to establish the National Campaign for the People's Right to
Information (NCPRI). In response, the Indian government formed a working committee, led
by consumer rights activist H.D. Shourie, to draft legislation for governmental consideration.
The Working Group appointed by the government in 1997 became known as the 'Shourie
Committee,' named after its leader, H.D. Shourie, a former bureaucrat and consumer rights
advocate. This committee expanded the exclusions, allowing public agencies to withhold
information deemed harmful to the public interest. Consequently, this provision enabled
public authorities to postpone the release of incriminating evidence under the guise of public
interest, effectively undermining the entire Act. Notably, the critical section that stipulated
that only information that could be withheld from Parliament or the legislature could be
denied to citizens was omitted. In July 2000, the Shourie draft was revisited with substantial
amendments and presented as the Freedom of Information Bill, 2000. The Freedom of
Information Act was subsequently enacted in 2002. The Right to Information (RTI) is an Act
of the Indian Parliament that establishes the current framework for citizens' right to
information, superseding the earlier Freedom of Information Act of 2002. This law was
passed by Parliament on June 15, 2005, and came into effect on October 12, 2005, granting
all citizens the right to information in accordance with its provisions.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHS AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION

The right to information has become a firmly established fundamental right, originating from
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently
upheld the citizens' right to know. The core of this right, along with its constraints, has been
examined by the Supreme Court in various rulings. A thorough analysis suggests that the
journey towards realizing the Right to Information (RTI) within the constitutional framework
commenced with the landmark case of Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India (1959). In the
case of Bennett Coleman v. Union of India (1972), the Supreme Court recognized the Right
to Information as an integral part of Article 19(1)(a), declaring that the Newsprint Control
Order of 1972-1973, enacted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was ultra vires to
Article 19(1)(a). Chief Justice A.N. Ray, in the majority opinion, articulated that 'freedom of
the press unequivocally encompasses the right of all individuals to discuss, publish, and
express their views.' This freedom embodies the public's right to access information. Justice
K. K. Mathew provided a significant interpretation in State of U. P. v. Raj Narain (1975),
asserting that in a 'government of responsibility like ours,' where public officials must be
accountable for their actions, 'there can be but a few secrets.' He emphasized that citizens
possess the right to be informed about every public action undertaken by public servants. The
case involved Raj Narain, who challenged the validity of Indira Gandhi's election victory,
seeking access to Blue Books detailing the Prime Minister's travel plans and security
measures. Although the disclosure was ultimately denied, Justice Mathew concluded that the
populace has a right to know the details of all public transactions.

In the landmark case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court achieved a
pivotal advancement by affirming the constitutional validity of the Right to Information. The
central issue in this case revolved around the Indian government's assertion of privilege
concerning the release of specific documents, including communications between the Chief
Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi regarding the confirmation
of Justice Kumar, an additional Judge of the Delhi High Court. Justice Bhagwati, in his
characteristic humanistic approach, championed the principle of open government, positing it
as a direct extension of the right to access information, which is implicitly linked to the right
to free speech and expression as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He
concluded that the right to information is essential for fostering an ideal democratic society,
emphasizing that transparency in governmental affairs should be the norm, with secrecy only
permissible under the most stringent public interest criteria. Subsequently, in the landmark
ruling of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), the Supreme Court
further expanded the interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) by recognizing the voters' right to be
informed about the backgrounds of electoral candidates. This ruling established that
knowledge of candidates' histories is a fundamental prerequisite for citizens exercising their
voting rights in elections for Parliament, state legislatures, panchayats, or municipal
corporations. The public has an inherent right to be aware of the qualifications of individuals
vying for significant positions within a democracy. In response, the government attempted to
counteract the ruling through an ordinance and subsequent legislation, which the Supreme
Court later deemed unconstitutional in People's Union of Civil Liberties v. UOI (1996). The
Court notably remarked that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution do not
possess fixed meanings.

PROVISIONS
Appropriate Government [Section 2(a)]
The definition of "appropriate government" is provided in Section 2(a) of the Act. The
appropriate government refers to the government's relationship with a public authority
concerned with the right to information. The Central Government, union territory
administrations, or state governments establish, constitute, possess, manage, or fund such
power.
Competent authority [Section 2(e)]
Section 2(e) of the Act defines "competent authority." The competent authority is the
authority in control of the autonomous institutions that operate in accordance with the
requirements of the Constitution. This authority is ultimately responsible for enforcing the
RTI Act at those institutions. In the instance of the Supreme Court of India, for example, the
Chief Justice of India is the competent authority. Competent authority entails the following:
◦ Lok Sabha Speaker
◦ Rajya Sabha Chairman
◦ State/UT Legislative Assembly Speaker
◦ State Legislative Council Chairman
◦ Chief Justice of India
◦ Chief Justice of a High Court
◦ President or the Governor, as the case may be, in the case of other authorities
established or constituted by or under the Constitution
◦ Article 239 of the Constitution provides for the appointment of an administrator.

Information [Section 2(f)]

Section 2(f) specifies the kind of information.
The term "information" refers to any content in any form, including:
◦ Records (written information including any map, image etc. of any act, policy or
judgment belonging to a governmental body)
◦ Documents (a portion of a record or a separate document or a piece of information
giving specifics on a specific topic or decision of governmental authority)
◦ Memos (they may be in the form of a letter or a note on a particular subject)
◦ E-mails
◦ Opinions (opinions of a government agency or government personnel transmitted in
official affairs as part of the official record)
◦ Advice (advice on official affairs constituting part of the official record)
◦ Publications in the press (press briefings or press notes on official matters when
released in an official capacity)
◦ Circulars (government/public authority circulars disseminated in an official capacity
informing a certain decision or policy)
◦ Orders (any order issued by governmental authority in an official capacity)
◦ Logbooks (documents containing information, observations, and statistics of a
particular project of public authority)
◦ Contracts (official contracts entered into by the public authority and the specifics
thereof)
◦ Reports (reports about official issues including test results, inquiry reports, and expert
reports on a certain subject)
◦ Section 8 (1) mentions exemptions against furnishing information under RTI Act.
◦ Section 8 (2) provides for disclosure of information exempted under Official Secrets
Act, 1923 if larger public interest is served.
◦ The Act also provides for appointment of Information Commissioners at Central
and State level. Public authorities have designated some of its officers as Public
Information Officer. They are responsible to give information to a person who seeks
information under the RTI Act.
◦ Time period: In normal course, information to an applicant is to be supplied within
30 days from the receipt of application by the public authority. If information
sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, it shall be supplied within 48
hours. In case the application is sent through the Assistant Public Information
Officer or it is sent to a wrong public authority, five days shall be added to the
period of thirty days or 48 hours, as the case may be.
 Section 20: Provides penalties in case of failure to provide information on time,
incorrect, incomplete or misleading or distorted information.

 Section 23: Lower courts are barred from entertaining suits or applications. However,
the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India and high courts under Articles 32
and 226 of the Constitution remains unaffected.