Abstract
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has transformed India’s democratic scene by rightfully supporting the entitlement to obtain information from the government authorities, which has improved transparency and accountability. This article considers its transformation of the democratic scene, discusses landmark case laws that have shaped its contours and analyses the effects of recent legislative changes including the amendments that relate to personal information under the DPDP Act.
Introduction
The role of transparency is crucial to a healthy democracy. Prior to the RTI Act, secrecy was the mode of operation in India’s administrative functioning and plural questioning of government action was stifled. The RTI Act dismantled this culture of secrecy, and provided statutory backing to the right to information, which is founded in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Over the last two decades, the law has induced accountable governance, reduced corruption, and empowered citizens. However, there are several proposed and implemented changes over the past few years, including the amendments made by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, that provide impediments to the future of openness in administration.
Keywords
RTI Act 2005, Transparency, Accountability, Landmark Cases, Good Governance, Section 8(1)(j), DPDP Act, Personal Data, Amendments
The Importance of the RTI Act 2005
The RTI Act of 2005 was a watershed moment in India’s democratic evolution, for the first time providing a legal framework for citizen inquiries of government-held information subject to a clearly delineated time-limit to provide the information. It enshrined important objectives, including:
- The ability of citizens to question the government’s actions
- The ability to make decision-making and implementation more open to scrutiny
- Serving as a deterrent to the corruption through exposing anomalies
Important Legal Provisions
- Section 2(h): meaning of “public authorities”
- Section 4(1)(b): public authorities required to proactively disclose
- Sections 6–7: time-bound procedures in seeking and obtaining information
- Section 8: identifying exemptions while recognizing the balance of necessary confidentiality to legitimate disclosure
Effects on Governance
The Act has shaped Indian governance as follows:
- Citizens can now ask to see official records, thereby challenging arbitrary decision making and nudging them towards responsible administration
- There have been recorded instances of the revealing of inefficiency, maladministration and corruption – providing evidence for reform
- Information can lead to improved citizen participation as well as reasoned debate and involvement in community governance
The Act has the potential to impact various sectors:
- Public Sector: Increased transparency of public spending, management of programs and decision making in the government;
- Private Sector: Provided means to hold accountable entities engaged in public contracts;
- Civil Society/NGOs: Strong advocacy and monitoring tools that can enforce effective implementation of welfare schemes.
Landmark Judicial Decisions
State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428
Established the citizen’s right to know about certain governmental actions under Article 19(1)(a), establishing that all actions of the State are potentially open to public scrutiny, except where the state can demonstrate lawful secrecy including national security.
CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497
The Supreme Court held that evaluated answer papers of students were “information” under the RTI; the answer papers could be disclosed unless disclosed under some exemption and further, confirmed the principle that information of public authorities, essentially belonged to the citizens.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, (2013) 1 SCC 212
Established clarity and similarly stated that personal information about public servants was generally exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest was shown in relation to that information, thereby considerably widening the exemptions under the Act.
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481
Held that the Chief Justice of India is a “public authority” in terms of RTI; held that judicial accountability is subject to reasonable restrictions (from Article 14) and not an absolute secrecy.
Other Significant Decisions:
- People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399: Recognised the right of voters to know the criminal and educational record of the candidates.
- Karnataka Information Commissioner v. PIO, (2016) 3 SCC 102: Determined the limit of Information Commissions on exercising judicial review.
Recent Amendments and Proposed Changes
- The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) now allows for a much broader cases of denial of information as “personal” information; restrictions are eliminated on the mandatory public interest test, to be conducted prior to denying release.
- This is concerning as potentially useful public information, like asset declarations by certain public servants, may subsequently be excluded; this may impede investigations into corruption, and hinder analysis of the democratic oversights over public representatives.
- The RTI Amendment Act, 2019, also compromised the independence of Information Commissioners by allowing conditions of service to ultimately be determined by executive discretion.
- After the 2019 RTI Amendment, the Central Government got the power to decide the tenure, salary, and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs). This has caused delays in appointments, and at times even the CIC’s post has been vacant. Because these posts are often vacant or delayed, RTI appeals pile up, weakening transparency and accountability.
Critique and Concerns
While we all want to protect privacy, general exemptions limit transparency which could deter journalistic investigative inquiries and legal access to information for public interest litigation and oversight. We find ourselves needing to balance the right to privacy with the right to information, while still maintaining the founding values of a democracy.
Conclusion
The Right to Information Act, 2005 remains a cornerstone of India’s democracy by promoting citizen empowerment, assisting in fighting corruption and sanctioning governmental accountability. Many positive landmark judicial decisions have promoted it’s reach and effectiveness, despite its sustainability being challenged. The proposed revisions, particularly the DPDP Act, should be comprehensively considered, as not complete privacy is important but accountability in open government is paramount. Members of the legal community, policymakers, and civil society will need to further defend, refine, and promote RTI’s position in the evolution of democracy in India.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY __ Kondala Phani Priya
