5 Chapter 5

RIGHT TO
INFORMATION IN
INDIA
179
CHAPTER-5
RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN INDIA
“With the right to information on their side, the media need no longer depend
on questionable sources of information, and can use Right to Information Act to
access credible and authentic information”
Justice P.B. Sawant
India is a democratic country; the head of the country is elected by the people
of the country. The Government of the country possesses the authority to work for the
welfare of the country on behalf of the people. The final decision making power
regarding the welfare of the country is in the hands of Government. The people of the
country want to know how the government is functioning. People have many
questions regarding the functioning of the government. So, to answer all the questions
of the people, the Parliament passed a new Bill known as “The Right to Information
Act, 2005”. The Bill was presented in Parliament on 22nd December, 2004. After
intense debate till 15th June, 2005, it was finally passed on 15th June 2005 and came
into force on 12th October, 2005. The Right to Information Act aimed at ensuring
transparency in the functioning of Central & State Governments. The Act provides for
setting out the practical regime of right to information for people to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority, the Central Information
Commission and State Information Commissions have been constituted for this
purpose.
Before passing of this Act, Disclosure of Government Information in India

was governed by a law enacted during the British rule named as Official Secrets Act
of 1889 which was amended in 1923. After 1923, it has taken India 82 years to
transition from an opaque system of governance, legitimized by the colonial Official
Secrets Act, to one where citizens can demand the Right to Information.
The Right to Information is derived from our fundamental right of freedom of

speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. It says, “All the
citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.” The main idea is
180
that if the people do not have any information regarding the functioning of the
Government and public institutions, then people cannot express any informed opinion
on it. In a system of democracy where citizen being at the centre of government- rule
of the people, For such a democracy to function, Freedom of press is necessary to be
understood first. The main reason for a press is to ensure that the citizens are
informed. Thus, it clearly flows from this that the citizen’s right to know is
paramount.1
5.1 Right to Information Movement in India
To intensify the process of paradigm shift from state centric to citizen centric
model of development the Right to Information Moment in India came into existence
in 1990s by resolving a major contradiction between the Colonial Acts, which
prevents access to information and the post-independent Indian Constitution, which
recognize the seeking information as a fundamental right to promote transparent,
accountable, responsible, participatory and decentralized democracy. As a result of
grassroots movement for the Right to Information to combat the corruption, well
informed citizens and to promote the Good Governance, the state has responded in the
form of Right to Information Act-2005, with the introduction of the introduction of
the Right to Information Act-2005 the Colonial Acts such as the official Secrets Acts,
Indian Evidence Act and the Civil Service Code of Conduct Rules, which contain
provisions that restrict the Fundamental Right to Information as ensured to the
citizens in the Constitution has become irrelevant.2
5.2 Colonial Acts and Denial of the Information
The battle for appropriate legislation for the right to information has been
fought on two main planks. The first is a demand for amendment of the draconian
colonial Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the second, campaign for an effective law on
the right to information. The official Secrets Acts, 1923, is a replica of the erstwhile
British Official Secrets Act and deal with espionage on the one hand, but has the
damaging “catch all” Section 5 which makes it an offence to part with any
1
B. Pramela Kumari, ‘Right to Information and Good Governance in India: A Critical Analysis’,
(LL.M. Dissertation, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, 2013) pp. 24-25
2
(LL.M. Dissertation, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, 2013) p. 25
181
information received in the course of official duty, to non-officials. During the last
decade, the focus of citizens groups has shifted from demanding merely an
amendment to the Official Secrets Act, to the demand for its outright repeal, and its
replacement by a comprehensive legislation, which would make disclosure the duty
and secrecy the offence. Because even the powerful grassroots organization like
MKSS continues to experience enormous difficulties in securing access to and copies
of government documents, despite clear administrative instructions that certified
copies of such documents should be available to the citizen on demand. This
highlighted to citizens group how important it is that people’s right to information
should be enforceable by law.1
5.3 Constitution and Right to Information
The Preamble to the Constitution describes India as a Sovereign Democratic

Republic. The interpretation of the rights conferred by the Constitution thus has to
take their colour from the democratic Republic character of our body politic. The
Constitution being an instrument designed for securing the country’s governance as a
Democratic Republic, our rights under the Constitution, have to receive an orientation
and meaning which can facilitate and effectuate this fundamental premise.
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, guarantees the fundamental rights to free
speech and expression, which, by implication, includes within it the right of access to
information. The prerequisite for enjoying this right is knowledge and information.
Therefore, the Right to Information becomes a Constitution right, being an aspect of
the right to free speech and expression, which includes the right to receive and collect
information. However, Article 19 (2) permits the state to make any law insofar as
such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
The right to information also seems to flow from Article 21 of the Constitution
on the right to life and liberty, which includes right to know about things that affect
our lives. The expression “right to life and personal liberty” is broad which includes
within itself a variety of rights and attributes. For sustaining and nurturing that
opinion it becomes necessary to receive information. Thus Article 21 confers on all
1
(LL.M. Dissertation, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, 2013) pp. 25-26
182
persons a right to know which includes a right to receive information. The ambit and
scope of Article 21 is much wider as compared to Article 19 (1) (a).
Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution guarantee ‘right to constitutional

remedies’ whereby a citizen is entitled to seek a remedy in Supreme Court and High
Courts, if his or her fundamental rights are violated. Under Article 253, Parliament
has power to make law for giving effect to international agreements and under Article
51 © the State is duty bound to foster respect for international law and treaty
obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another. The Constitution
sets out the duties owed by every citizen under Article 51 A. A fully informed citizen
is better equipped for the performance of these duties. Access to information would
assist citizens in fulfilling these obligations. Further, Article 361 A which deals with
‘Protection of publication and proceedings of Parliament and State Legislatures,
creates protection against actions for defamation arising from lawful and accurate
parliamentary reporting. This implies that the media can inform the people about what
is happening in the legislatures without fear of being sued.
As a result of the prolonged Indian national movement against the British

imperialist colonial rule the liberal democratic political system with a written
Constitution includes rule of law, social justice, development, adult franchise,
periodic elections, multiparty system, has come into existence. For the transparent
functioning of the democratic political system, the founding fathers of the
Constitution include the provisions of the right to expression in part three of the
Constitution in the fundamental rights. While there is no specific right to information
or even right to freedom of the press in the Constitution of India, the right to
information has been read into the Constitutional guarantees which are a part of the
chapter on Fundamental Rights. The Indian Constitution has an impressive array of
basic and inalienable rights contained in Chapter three of three of the Constitution.
These include the Right to Equal Protection of the Laws and the Right to Equality
before the Law1, the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression2 and the Right to
Life and Personal Liberty.3 The Right to Constitution Remedies in Article 32, backs
1
Article 14
2
Article 19 (1) (a)
3
Article 21
183
these that is, the Right to approach the Supreme Court in case of infringement of any
of these rights.
The development of the right to information as a part of the Constitution Law

of the country started with petitions of the press to the Supreme Court for enforcement
of certain logistical implications of the right to freedom of speech and expression such
as challenging governmental orders for control of newsprint bans on distribution of
papers, etc. It was these cases that the concept of the public’s right to know
developed.
The freedom movement, the Constitution of India, Supreme Court and some
of the politicians supported for the right to information, but not materialized due to
various reasons like policy support, institutional arrangements etc. Therefore, to
achieve the right to information act, the strong grassroots level movement was
needed. The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangthana, parivarthan etc, fulfilled the gap of
grassroots level movement and intellectual pressure and input was given by the
National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and Common Wealth Human
Rights Initiative.1
5.4 Civil Society and Right to Information
The Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information

Society, held at Geneva on 8 December 2003 declared that: “We are committed to
building information and communication societies that are people-centred, inclusive
and equitable. Societies, in which everyone can freely create, access, utilise, share and
disseminate information and knowledge, so that individuals, communities and peoples
are empowered to improve their quality of life and to achieve their full potential.”
“Everyone, everywhere, at any time should have the opportunity to participate

in communication processes and no one should be excluded from their benefits. This
implies that every person must have access to the means of communication and must
be able to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes
1
S.V. Joga Rao, Law Relating to Right to Information, (Volume 1, First Edition, Pentagon Press, New
Delhi, 2009) p. 26
184
the right to hold opinions and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
“A democratic perspective on information and communication societies, in

which information is crucial for citizens, is necessary in order to make choices
grounded on the awareness of alternatives and opportunities. Information and
communication are the foundation for transparency, debate and decision-making.
They can contribute to a culture and a practice of cooperation, basis for a renewal of
democracy.”1
The Right to Information Act, 2005 is an important legislation that provides

opportunities to CSOs to be involved in governance and social transformation
processes by using the Act as a weapon to monitor, review and evaluate Government
policies, programmes and schemes. CSOs can infuse greater transparency and
accountability in the administration of developmental programmes and arrest the
abuse of power and misuse of public resources with the help of the RTI Act. Some of
the primary roles that the CSOs can play with regard to RTI are as follows:
1. As CSOs are involved in basic service delivery, they can provide necessary
institutional basis to the RTI movement when questions of effectiveness and
responsiveness of the State arise.
2. At the local level, CSOs as grassroots organisations can promote collective
action using the RTI Act to improve access to basic services like health,
education and welfare etc.
3. CSOs can take up education and awareness programmes on RTI Act to help
mobilise people and encourage groups to use the Act to access information.
4. CSOs can become effective vehicles for representing and negotiating citizens’
interests vis-à-vis the State.
5. CSOs can promote good governance and social equity by accessing
information and also monitoring both state and market performance.
6. CSOs can increasingly use the RTI Act in disseminating information on
current legislations, public expenditure, policy implementation, achievements
1
The Right to Information Act, 2005, A Guide for Civil Society Organisations, National Implementing
Agency- Capacity Building for Access to Information Project, July, 2006, pp. 23-24
185
and drawbacks in promotion of the rule of law, good governance, and respect
for human rights etc.
7. CSOs can use various social accountability tools such as Social Audit in
assessing the performance of a public authority.
8. CSOs can assist in the demystification of the Act, Rules and procedural
requirements concerning access to information which might deter people
making requests.
9. CSOs can systematically persuade Government Departments to prepare for
mass divulging of information and address the saying that old habits die hard;
they may work closely with ‘champions’ and ‘strategic partners’.
10. The danger of the “Swiss cheese problem” that the exemptions under the Act
bite holes in the information accessible, leaving very little left may render the
Act a ‘closing down’ rather than ‘opening up’ law. CSOs may keep a vigil on
how the law is being interpreted by PIOs, Public Authorities and Information
Commissions.
11. CSOs may disseminate important decisions of Information Commissions
across the country so as to facilitate learning of lessons by public authorities
and education among the citizens.
12. CSOs must prompt government organizations towards a “right to know”
approach to automatically publish all relevant information rather than waiting
for information requests.
Under the RTI Act, Civil Society Organisations can:
Demand from the Government information pertaining to any of its

departments
Demand photocopies of Government contracts, payment, estimates,
measurements of engineering works etc.
Demand from the Government samples of material used in the construction of
roads, drains, buildings etc.
Demand to inspect any public development work that may be still under
construction or completed
Demand to inspect Government documents - construction drawings, records
books and registers etc.
Demand status of requests or complaints, details of time delays etc.
186
The RTI Act provides unique opportunities to tackle many corporate issues.
The latter may cover exposing unlawful and unjust activities of corporates in the areas
of banking, insurance and pensions, eliciting information on status of pollution
control, pollution testing and disposal of hazardous/toxic wastes, asking about safety
testing and consumer protection, getting information on the costs and quality of drugs,
etc.
At the same time, NGOs substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds

provided by the Government are recognized as ‘Public Authorities’ under the RTI Act
and thus have an obligation to comply with all provisions mandated for public
authorities under the Act including appointment of Public Information Officers (PIOs)
and Appellate Officers, proactive disclosure of information etc.1
There are a number of actions which would need the involvement of CSOs in
furthering the cause of RTI. However the primary actions that the CSOs can embark
upon are as follows:
Forming partnerships
CSOs can form partnerships with the Government in promoting the RTI Act.
Civic engagement and responsible governance both necessitate the establishment and
strengthening of participatory mechanisms, including access to information. Further,
CSOs can specifically support RTI by:
• Organising local, regional, and national consultations of partners;

• Establish and strengthen Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) networks
working on RTI;
• Strengthen new partnerships between Community Based Organisations
(CBOs) and NGOs;
Strengthening participatory mechanisms
CSOs, especially NGOs along with the government at local, national and
international levels can facilitate and enable broad-based participation of community
1
187
organizations in monitoring the implementation of provisions under the RTI Act.

CSOs can promote RTI by:
Organising awareness campaigns on Right to Information;

Participating in the sessions of the Information Commission or in any such
forum (court sessions) that would help in enhancing their information and
knowledge base;
Disseminating the RTI Act with emphasis on all the pro-people provisions and
the commitments by Governments;
Acting as a facilitator to monitor and promote the implementation of the RTI
Act;
Implementing mechanisms to monitor selected aspects of the implementation
of the Act at the local, national and international levels;
Continuously advocating for the right to access information;
Improving modalities for collaboration of CSOs with Governments, local
authorities and other partners;
Mobilising media to increase public awareness on the RTI Act.;
Promoting capacity enhancement
The effective implementation of the RTI Act requires strengthening of the

local authorities, village organizations, neighbourhood committee and NGOs etc.
CSOs can undertake capacity building programmes in critical areas like, participatory
approaches, implementation and evaluation, research, information and advocacy.
CSOs can help build capacities by:
• Preparing model local agendas on RTI and facilitate their implementation;

• Providing training in participation and civic engagement through meetings,
workshops etc., at all levels;
• Assisting in strengthening the capacity of the community in understanding
RTI;
• Translating provisions of the RTI Act into local languages;
• Facilitating information exchange on all relevant aspects of access to
information.
188
Initiate and promote enabling approaches
CSOs can help retain transparency and accountability on the part of the
Government. Under this strategy, CSOs can create a situation in which the potential
and resources of all actors involved under the RTI Act can be applied. The CSOs can
help to enable:
Information sharing among various civil society partners;

Identifying NGOs and individuals who have championed the cause of RTI;
Active participation of community in various RTI forums and initiatives;
Promotion of political and legislative means that will allow community to
influence the concerned government departments/officials in implementing the
RTI Act.
Promotion of Equity
CSOs can ensure that the benefits accrued through the implementation of the
RTI Act are reaped by every section of society. This is possible by facilitating and
enabling broad-based participation of all people specifically:
• By helping women participate in knowing their rights through access to

information;
• By helping vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, including people living in
poverty and other low-income groups in using RTI to realise their rightful
entitlements;
• Through institutional measures to ensure the promotion of the RTI Act;
• Through such techniques as advocacy training and meetings, including those
that develop mediating and consensus-building skills that will facilitate
effective networking and alliance formation for propagating RTI.1
Strategies for Civil Society Organisations
There are several strategies through which the access of citizens to public
information can be enhanced. Some of the strategies suggested for CSOs are:
1
189
a. Networking: Interested CSOs, individuals and groups can form networks for
sharing development experiences and lessons learnt on a regular basis. The
networks can also act as ‘policy watch groups’ for tracking developments in the
law, and identifying opportunities for intervening in the policy process. Some
examples of networks working on Right to Information issues in India are:
NCPRI (The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information), a network
facilitating and advocating the people’s right to information, KRIA-Katte, a
forum of groups and individuals involved in spreading awareness regarding use
of the RTI Act in Karnataka, the Mahadhikar Group (recently renamed as “Hum
Janenge”), an apolitical, web-based forum for facilitating interaction among
Civil Society members interested in the use of the RTI in India.
b. Advocacy: The RTI presents a strong case for CSOs to engage in advocacy on
key issues of public interest. Advocacy by a networked group of CSOs can go a
long way in enabling greater access to information and effective implementation
of the RTI Act.
c. Awareness Generation: A conscious effort has to be made by CSOs to
generate greater awareness among the general public on their right to
information and its implications. Apart from mass awareness campaigns, CSOs
should also train cadres of social activists on RTI who can speak on behalf of
their community and seek accountability and transparency by invoking
provisions under the RTI Act.
d. Effective use of the media: The media brings out several investigative reports
on service delivery issues. The perception of the citizens on various schemes of
the Government will help Civil Society to probe deeper into the commissions
and omissions of public agencies. Simultaneously, CSOs can highlight key
issues and expose wrongdoings of public institutions and functionaries through
the media on the basis of evidence and information obtained through the RTI
Act.
e. Capacity Building: CSOs must develop strong capacity for using RTI
toundertake evaluation and audit of Government programmes. Implementation
of such programmes and their wide replication requires a cadre of well-trained
resource persons at different levels, effective communication campaign for
190
community mobilization, regular impact assessment and evaluation studies and

dissemination of case studies and best practices.1
5.5 Efforts of the MKSS towards Right to Information Act
A chronological legal account from the early nineties till date, which details
the efforts to institute right to information as a statutory right, is amply documented in
the commentaries of the MKSS (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan), the National
Campaign for the People’s right to information (NCPRI) which was formed in 1996,
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) and state specific movements and
organizations involved in the struggle for RTI. The process of law making itself
generated substantial writings. The makings of a national right to information law,
took seed in a meeting of civil servants, lawyers and social activists at the Lal
Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie in October 1995
initiated by some serving officials of this institute on the right to information. The
workshop proceedings of the Press Council of India in 1996, deriving from the earlier
meeting, gave rise to the first draft bill on RTI. Careful thought was given not only to
what information could be sought under the law but also what could not. At the time,
the bill envisaged the applicability of the RTI not only to the state but the corporate
and NGO sectors as well. A draft by the Consumer Education Research Council
(CERC) followed, proposing an outright repeal of the official Secret Act 1923. In
1997, the government of India constituted a committee under the chairmanship of
consumer activist H.D. Shourie to draft legislation. In this report, the committee
improved on the Press Council draft by explicitly bringing the judiciary and
legislatures under the purview of the proposed legislation, but diluted its provisions in
most other crucial aspects.
Put on the backburner with a change of guard at the Centre in quick

succession, the Shourie draft reincarnated in an even weaker form as the freedom of
information (FOI) Bill in 2000. It was finally passed in 2002 during the NDA
government’s tenure but never notified. The struggle for a strong national RTI law
received a shot in the arm with the new UPA government committing to it in its
Common Minimum Programme. Upon the NCPRI’s recommendations, the National
1
191
Advisory Council submitted its draft to the government in August 2004, which was
worked on by the Department of personnel and Training and the invisible hand of
nameless bureaucrats to be finally tabled in Parliament in December 2004 as The
Right to Information Bill.
Both the FOI Bill 2002 and the draft RTI Bill 2004 evoked criticisms in their
own right, in so far as they violated the basic tenets of a strong and tenable right to
information law (of maximum disclosures, independent appeal, penalties and effective
mechanisms for access to information). Although the latter represented step forward
from the FOI in various aspects, it crucially restricted the applicability of the proposed
law to Central Government offices only. Predictably, both times, the handiwork of
uncomfortable bureaucrats ensured that the bills went through similar processes of
dilution. But ad mentioned earlier, none of the opposition to the right to information
was penned down openly.
In the meanwhile, some State government took the initiative to pass RTI laws
or orders incorporating certain provisions for disclosures. Wherever the demand for
its sprung from the people, the laws too were stronger or more effectively enforced.
The RTI Bill 2004 was referred to a parliamentary Standing Committee which
came out with its report in April 2005. Its recommendations, commendably, attempted
to bring the derailed bill tight back on track. When the bill finally came up for
discussion in Parliament on 11th May, 2005, it looked fairly close to the original NAC
draft, and was passed in this form. A reading into these different versions of the
clearly reveals a bargaining process what dilutions were attempted, and how they
were checked.
5.6 Public Hearing is the Genesis of Right to Information Movement
Public Hearing or Jan Sunwaisis the origin point of the Right to Information
Movement in India. The instrument of public hearing was initiated by the MKSS in
some parts of rural areas of Rajasthan. In order to check the corruption with the
involvement of the people the public hearing was begun. The public hearing is
nothing but an open and democratic debate about the public issues. In this type of
public hearing Elected Representatives, Government Officials, People, local
Intelligentsia such as lawyers, media persons, Non-Government Organizations,
192
Community Based Organizations and External Observers etc. will participate. In

public hearings generally, after identifying issues for example, corruption in
development activities further deliberations take place. The Mazdoor Kissan Shakti
Sangathana identified corruption, misuse, and nepotism in the drought relief works,
which were sanctioned for the rural poor. Therefore, MKSS initiated the series of
public hearing over the rural developmental activities with the substantial evidence of
data and documents by involving cross section of the society. The public hearings are
being conducted in Panchayati Raj Institutions, Government Offices and Non-
Governmental Organizations, which are receiving the substantial financial support
from the public authorities. In these public hearings in front of the public it is proved
that a great deal of corruption and misuse is taking place. It was happened due to
secrecy in the maintenance of records and registers and lack of accessibility to the
public information for the citizens. Therefore, to combat the corruption in the
developmental activities initiated either by the State Government or Central
Government there is needed to have the Act support to access the public information
which is national wealth generated by the citizens.1
5.7 Pioneering States in Introducing Right to Information Act
Even before the Freedom of Information Act was passed by the Parliament,
several States in India had enacted their own Legislations on Freedom of / Right to
Information. The fact that some of the States in the country took a lead in enacting
right to information legislations (or codes of disclosure of certain categories of
information), and the lessons that were learnt from the implementation of these
various legislations were indeed helpful, in framing the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 in detail. A brief overview of the State Acts in operation prior
to the enactment of the RTI Act is provided below:
Tamil Nadu was the first State to introduce the Right to Information Act in
April 1996. The legislation aimed at ensuring access to information about
Government administration. The Bill was modeled on the draft legislation
recommended by the Press Council of India. However, the enacted legislation was full
of exemptions and inadequacies. So it failed to evoke much response from the public
and NGOs and other concerned activists.
1
(LL.M. Dissertation, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, 2013) p. 28
193
Goa was the second State to enact the Right to Information legislation in 1997.
The Goa Act contained several provisions, which allowed the State to withhold
information without substantiating reasons for it.
The grassroots movement led by MKSS compelled the Rajasthan Government

to act in the direction to prepare the Right to Information Bill. Several other sister
organisations also joined hands with MKSS to start an agitation on a large scale and
declared an indefinite strike. It was called off when a high level committee was
appointed to work out the modalities of how photocopies could be provided in
relation to the order issued in April 1996. The Rajasthan Right to Information Act,
2000, had 13 sections in all, 10 of which established categories of exemptions. It
contained a provision for one internal appeal and also for an appeal to an independent
body.
The Karnataka Government took steps to make information available to the

public as far back as 1997, starting with many government departments issuing
executive orders to provide access to information on development projects undertaken
by them and to keep relevant records open for inspection or available for copying for
a nominal fee. In August 2000, the executive orders were supplemented by the Right
to Information ordinance recognising the necessity to enact a comprehensive
legislation. The State Legislative Assembly was not in session. Hence an ordinance
was passed on the matter as a first step.
The Karnataka Right to Information Act 2000 was enacted soon after by the
State Assembly in December 2000. Unfortunately, however the Act could not be
operationalised properly until July 2002, when the Government of Karnataka notified
the Karnataka Right to Information Rules.
The Maharashtra Right to Information Act, 2000 had nine sections in all and
22 categories of exemptions. However, it did not provide for the establishment of an
appellate authority which would review refusals. It did not have provisions for
providing information proactively, or penalties for withholding or destroying
information either.
The Delhi Legislature passed the Delhi Right to Information Act in 2001. This
law had been along the lines of the Goa Act, containing the standard exemptions and
194
provided for an appeal to an independent body, as well as establishing an advisory

body, the State Council for Right to Information.
Assam passed the ‘Assam Right to Information Act’ in 2001. Section 4(2)
provides 11 exemptions from disclosure of information.
Even, before a bill was introduced in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly, in

certain places like Bilaspur and Korba, the local authorities provided access to
information. The Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur initiated it in the matter of the
Public Distribution System (PDS) and allowed the citizens to access details of food-
grains and commodities allotted to their areas and their distribution. The scheme was
soon extended to development programmes and pollution awareness. It was observed
that the right to information considerably reduced black-marketing and corruption in
the PDS. Moreover, in polluted areas like Korba, the sharing of information on
pollution level raised public consciousness. As a result, officials became careful about
monitoring and controlling pollution levels. Surprisingly, bowing to popular demand,
the Government passed a bouquet of executive orders dealing with right of access to
Government records. The Madhya Pradesh Assembly passed the Right to Information
Act in 2002.
Jammu & Kashmir passed the Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act in
2004. Section 6 of this Act provides 7 restrictions on right to information.
It needs to be noted that not only is the Right to Information Act, 2005 a
landmark legislation in the Indian context, it also places India among a group of some
of the more evolved democracies of the world, to have enacted such a law in an effort
towards deepening democracy.
It also needs to be noted that the RTI Act is in keeping with the provisions of
some of the path-breaking international covenants. However, progress on the part of
public authorities towards effective implementation of the Act in right earnest, and the
Act’s large scale acceptance and use by the people, as an instrument for pressing
transparency and accountability of public bodies / officials – will be the true indicator
of the success of the Act. In order for the Act to achieve its objectives, all the
195
stakeholders concerned with implementation of the Act – both from supply and
demand sides – will have to work in partnership and in a mission mode.1
5.8 Justification for Right to Information
To understand the importance of right to information, it is also necessary to

know the justification for right to information, slightly in a different way in
comparison to the above. Different views are being expressed by different expert on
the Right to Information. It is also necessary to view them in a different prospective.
Lord Atkin has rightly said the power corrupts and absolute power tends to
corrupt absolutely. There is an inherent danger that the vast powers of the executive
may be used for private gains or for corrupt ends, or arbitrarily and capriciously. In
this context, it is essential for the people to know what government is doing. The first
essential to ensure accountability of government to the people is the citizen’s right to
know or to be informed how and in what manner their government has been
functioning. Unless they have access to government information and have the true
facts, they will not be in a position to cast their votes, rationally and intelligently. A
democratic government is sensitive to the public opinion; it is for the public to form a
rational and correct opinion. They should have the facts, nothing but the true facts.
Any government, democratic or otherwise, may abuse its powers if it is

permitted to function in secrecy. Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought
not to be a system of regular government. Corruption thrives in secrets places.
Secrecy is an evil perse.
It is quite often in the interests of the government in power that people are
allowed to have access to facts to allay fears, doubts, suspicions and rumors. Thus,
one of the pillars of a democratic state is the citizen’s right to know the facts, the true
facts, about the administration of the country. With holding of information, unless
justified on a greater public interest, undermines public debate over public issues.
This may ultimately reach the electoral process also. Similarly by releasing selected
information or by twisting information, governments may be able to manipulate
public opinion and falsify the consent of the community at large.
1
Raj Kumar Pruthi, Manual of Right to Information Act, Pentagon Press, New Delhi, (2006) pp. 23-28
196
In a democratic polity, theoretically speaking, the people are the sovereign and
government is their servant. The right to information is thus absolute as far as the
‘sovereign public is concerned in order to instruct its servant- government. The
government in a democratic country derives its powers from the consent of the
governed. In the absence of consent, government does not have just powers because,
in a democracy, officials are only agents of the electorate. For citizens to believe in
the democratic process, they must believe that they are part of the process. For
citizens to believe that the process is just, it must be seen to be just. The electorate
needs information in order to perform the governing function. Thus the concept of
right to information springs from a programme of self-government.
The basis of self-government is that each individual in the community has a

right to determine, how he is collectively or individually governed. Implicit in this is
the right of access to information on how decisions are made affecting him directly or
indirectly. Thus, the nation of people’s right to self-government evidently implies
right to gather information from their government even when the government resists
disclosure.
The people as a sovereign should, therefore, have access to all information.

There can be thus no denial of the fact that the free speech to be meaningful preceded
by unfettered flow of information.
The first Amendment in United States and Article 19 (1) (a) of Indian
Constitution do not just protect a “freedom to speak”. They rather protect the freedom
of those activities of thought and communication, by which, we “Govern”. It is
concerned, not merely with a private right, but with a public power, a governmental
responsibility.
Another justification of right to information is found in the interests of

individual self-fulfillment. Man, unlike other animals, is endowed with the capacity to
think, to communicate and to build a culture. He has the powers of imagination,
insight and feeling. Development of these capacities and powers is necessary for the
development of his personality. The right to freedom of speech can be justified as a
right of an individual in the realization of his character and potentialities as a human
being. The right to freedom of expression is justified first of all as the right purely in
his capacity as an individual. It derives from the widely accepted premise of western
197
thought that the proper end of a man is realization of his character and capabilities as
a human being. Man is distinguished from other animals, principally by the qualities
of his mind. He has power to reason and feel in a way that is unique in degree, if not
in kind.
Secrecy thus can no larger be a solid foundation for the relation between
government and the people. Public trust in government must be matched by
government’s trust in the public. The freedom of information will strengthen
democracy by helping to provide people with a basis on which government policies
and actions can be discussed and debated, as well as allowing the performance of the
government to be judged fairly at the time of election. It will permit a more informed
electorate to make a more rational judgment.
It has taken many in India for a transformation from an opaque system of

governance, legitimized by the colonial Official Secrets Act, to one where citizens can
demand the right to information. The enactment of the Freedom of Information Act,
2002 and the Right to Information Act, 2005 mark a significant shift for Indian
democracy for a greater access of citizens to information and for a greater the
responsiveness of government to community needs. Hence the Right to Information
Act, 2005, is thus one of the most important and powerful laws passed since
independence. It creates many obligations on the Central and State Governments for
its implementation and monitoring mechanism and its successful implementation will
directly be correlated to the level of commitment within the Government.
The information sought may be in the public or private domain. The

information within the public domain may be under the control of Government, the
order may not be under the control of it. In such a case, the legitimate expectation of
the citizens is that the Government would facilitate the availability of such
information under a relevant legislation.
5.9 Historical Background of the RTI Act
Disclosure of Government Information in India is governed by a law enacted

during the British Rule, the Official Secrets Act of 1889, which was emended in 1923.
This law secures information related to security of the State, sovereignty of the
country and friendly relations with foreign states, and contains provisions which
198
prohibit disclosure of non-classified information. Civil Service conduct rules and the
Indian Evidence Act put further restrictions on government official power to disclose
information to the public.
In 1975, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that has been described as a
“landmark”, which held that “the people…..have a right to know every public act,
everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries”.1
5.10 Scope of the RTI Act
The Act covers the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir. It is applicable
to all constitutional authorities, including the executive, legislature and judiciary; any
institution or body established or constituted by an Act of Parliament or a State
Legislature or by order or notification of appropriate government. In special
circumstances bodies “owned, controlled or substantially financed” by government, or
non-Governmental organizations “substantially financed, directly or indirectly by
funds” provided by the government are also covered.
Private bodies are not within the Act’s ambit directly. However, information
that can be accessed under any other law in a force by a public authority can also be
requested for. In a landmark decision of 30 November, 2006 (Sarbajit Rao v. DERC)
the Central Information Commission also reaffirmed that privatized public utility
companies continue to be within the RTI Act –their privatization notwithstanding.
The Act also explicitly overrides the Official Secrets Act and other laws in force on
13 October, 2005 in the event of any inconsistency.2
An act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information
for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in
order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public
authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information
Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Whereas the constitution of India has established democratic Republic; and

democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of Information which are
1
Abhishek Shukla and Surinder K. Shukla, Rule of Law and Right to Information, Concept Publishing
Company Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, (2012) pp. 203-204
2
Abhishek Shukla and Surinder K. Shukla, Rule of Law and Right to Information, Concept Publishing
Company Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, (2012) p. 205
199
vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Government and
their instrumentalities accountable to governed and revelation of Information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations
of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of
confidentially of sensitive information; it is necessary to harmonies these conflicting
interests, while preserving the paramount of the democratic ideal; it is expedient to
provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it.
5.11 The Right to Information Act, 2005: An Overview
5.11.1 Citizen’s Right to Information1
Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states: “Subject to the

provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information”. The Act
defines “Information”, “Record” and “Right to Information” as follows:
a. Definition of “Information”2
“Any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails,

opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports,
papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information
relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any
other law for the time being in force”.
The concept of information under the Act has been given a wide scope. It has
been defined in detail including the various modes and forms of information which
can be accessed under the right to information. Since it is the key theme of the Act, its
various connotations, forms and dimensions have been incorporated in the Act. It may
include the following forms:-
Records: It may include the written details of anything, act or decision pertaining to a
public authority. Record as such may include any written thing which may further
includes any map, drawing or any of the forms as explained in sub-section (i).
Therefore anything pertaining to the record would be information under the Act.
1
Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
2
Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
200
Documents: Document may be part of record which may contain the details on a
particular subject. Each document may have an independent entity and may be read
and treated individually and independently. So, any such document would be a piece
of information.
Memos: Memos may be in the form of a correspondence or a note on a particular

subject. Therefore the subject of such memos would also be information under the
Act.
E-mails: The latest electronic form of correspondence through internet in the form of
e-mails is an effective means of communication and therefore subject of such e-mails
is a piece of information under the Act. Unless the subject is exempted under the Act,
the same may be called and obtained under the right to information as provided under
the Act.
Opinions: The opinions of the individuals and departments and the institutions as a
part of official record is a piece of information under the Act. Such opinions conveyed
in official dealings become part of the official record and the same become valid
information under the Act and it may be sought as information under the provisions of
the Act.
Advices: The advices on official matters are frequently issued and these become the
part of the official record. Such recorded advices are covered under the definition of
information under the Act.
Press Release: The press briefings or press notes on official matters when released in
official capacity are a part of official proceedings and therefore the same form a
record and become a document. Such press release becomes information under the
Act.
Circulars: The circulars notifying a particular decision or policy of the Government

or Public Authority circulated in official capacity are part of Government record and
accordingly these circulars are a piece of information covered under the Act.
Orders: Any order issued by any authority in official capacity is a part of the official
proceedings and the record and therefore all such orders are part of official
information which may be sought under the Act.
201
Logbooks: The logbooks are chiefly the documents containing measurements, data
and details of particular work or project of a public authority. Such logbooks being
part of the official record are valid pieces of information under the Act.
Contracts: The official contracts entered by the public authority and the details
thereof are part of information defined under the Act, Any information regarding such
contracts may be obtained under the Act.
Reports: Various reports regarding an official matters including the enquiry reports,
test reports on quality of material etc and the expert reports on a subject etc are part of
the official proceedings and such reports and the details thereof are valid information
under the Act.
Papers: Papers here mean part of the official record. All such papers which are
concerned with the official proceedings contain some sort of information under the
provisions of the Act and the same may be obtained under it.
Samples: Samples are normally drawn from material to be purchased or consumed in

connection with the Government affairs. Such samples are covered under the
information for the purpose of this Act. The samples may be obtained and required by
the applicant also from such material under the provisions of the Act because the
same are a piece of information as such. When such samples are obtained the same
would be information for this purpose.
Models: The definition of information envisaged under the Act also includes models
of various projects programmed and objects prepared in official proceedings. The
information regarding such models could also be obtained under the right to
information provided under the Act.
Data material held in electrical form: This is an important and easily obtainable
form of information. Any data stored in computers or any electronic form like C.D’s,
pen drives or floppies etc. which is not exempted under the provisions of the Act,
could be obtained under the Act.
Information relating to any private body: Although the right to information is

mainly applicable to Public Authority, but that information relating to a private body
which can be accessed by a Public Authority under any law, may be obtained under
202
the right to information. These private bodies have some sort of legal relation with the
Public Authority and this relation may be in the diversity of forms like monitoring,
control, financial aid, regulatory measures etc. Thus, when any public authority is in
position to have an access to information pertaining to private body, the same may be
obtained by a citizen.1
b. Definition of “Record” [Section 2 (i)]
“Record” includes-
(i) any document, manuscript and file;

(ii) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;
(iii) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether
enlarged or not); and
(iv) any other material produced by a computer or any other device.
c. Definition of “Right to Information”2
Right to information accessible under the RTI Act which is held by or under
the control of any public authority and includes the right to—
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) Taking notes extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) Taking certified samples of material;
(iv) Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes
or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is
stored in a computer or in any other device.
5.11.2 Institutional Framework
The Right to Information Act, 2005 envisages a legal-institutional framework

to establish and promote the practical regime of Right to Information for every citizen
of the country.
1
Abhe Singh Yadav, Right to Information Act, 2005 An Analysis, (Third Edition, Central Law
Publications, Allahabad, 2012) pp. 8-9
2
Section 2 (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
203
This framework comprises some critical authorities as follows:
• Public Authorities
• Public Information Officer (PIO)
• Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO)
• Other Officers
• Designated Appellate Officers
• Information Commission
• Ministries & Departments
• Appropriate Government
• Competent Authority1
The roles and responsibilities of various authorities and functionaries under

the Act are described below:
a. Public Authorities2
Public Authority is defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act as an authority or

body or institutions of self-government established or constituted —
(a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any
other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the
appropriate Government; and includes any – (i) body owned, controlled or
substantially financed and (ii) non-Government Organization substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. The Act
stipulates that every Public Authority:
shall maintain all its records duly catalogued, indexed, computerized and
Connected through network [Section 4(1) (a)]
shall proactively disclose stipulated information [Section 4(1) (b), (c) & (d)]
shall provide information suo motu at regular intervals and disseminate the
same widely [Section 4 (2), (3) & (4)]
shall designate Public Information Officers (PIOs) and Assistant Public
1
2
Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
204
Information Officers (APIOs) [Section 5 (1) & (2)] in all administrative units and
offices
shall make information accessible with PIOs [Section 4 (4)]

shall transfer misdirected requests for information to appropriate Public
Authorities [Section 6 (3)]
shall implement the decisions of the Information Commission, which are

binding under Section 19 (7) of the Act - complying with the provisions of the Act,
including providing information; designating a PIO; publishing certain information;
making changes to record management practices; arranging training for officials;
providing the Information Commission with annual report [suo motu disclosure
under Section 4 (1) (b)]; compensating the complainant for any loss or other detriment
suffered; ensuring that the concerned PIOs pay the penalties imposed by the
Commission on them; and taking disciplinary action against the concerned PIOs
based on recommendations of the Information Commission.1
The term in nutshell may denote the Government bodies or the bodies which
are related to Government directly or indirectly. It may include any authority, body or
institution of self governance. These bodies or institutions may be created by any
mode, i.e. by the Constitution like-Election Commission, Public Service
Commissions, High Courts and Supreme Court etc. These bodies may created by an
Act of Parliament or the State Legislatures. All statuary organizations and institutions
are covered under this category. In addition to it, the Government may establish
certain institutions by way of a notification. These institutions may be fully owned,
controlled or substantially financed by the Government. There may be non-
Government organizations also which may be substantially financed or controlled by
the Government.
Therefore, ‘public authority’ includes both Government and non-government

institution but the basic touchstone is the role of the Government in the functioning of
such institutions. Where the Government has a substantial or major role to play either
1
205
by way of administration, control, regulation or finance such authority would be

public authority under this Act whether it is a Government or non-Government body.1
Public Information officer and Anr. v. Manohar Parrikar and Anr.2 The
Bombay high court held that the President and the Governor owe their existence to the
constitution. It therefore, cannot be doubted that the posts of the President and
Governor are created by or under the constitution. Being so, the President and the
Governor are clearly covered by clause (h) of the definition of the “public authority”.
It is true that the President and the Governor have been specifically included
in the definition of “competent authority”. But the mere fact that the President and the
Governor are authorities mentioned in the sub clauses (iv) of section 2(e) of the RTI
Act, would not exclude them from the definition of “public authority”. If any of the
authorities mentioned in clauses (i) to (v) of Section 2(e) which defines “competent
authority” also fall within any of these clauses (a) to (d) of the definition of “public
authority” those persons/authorities would both be the “competent authority” as well
as the “public authority” are not mutually exclusive. The competent authorities and
one or more of them may also be the public authorities. Similarly the public
authorities or some of them like the president and the Governor who is the “public
authority” may also be the “Competent authority.” Overlapping is not prohibited
either by the RTI Act or by any other law.
Judicial body as public authorities
Though Section 2 (e) of the RTI Act unequivocally includes the judiciary
within the ambit of the Act, still a line of division and demarcation will have to be
drawn while applying the Act to the judiciary. The judicial proceedings being
conducted by the various courts including the subordinate courts and various other
judicial and quasi-judicial authorities including the Supreme Court and the High
Court’s has to be separated from their working on the administrative side. It is only
the administrative side of the judicial courts which is covered under the RTI Act and
not the judicial proceedings being conducted by such courts or tribunals. The
1
2
AIR 2012 Bom. 71
206
proceedings of the courts and tribunals cannot be interfered with under any
circumstances under the provisions of the RTI Act because such interference may be
detrimental to the independence of the judiciary which has been declared as one of the
essential ingredients of the basic structure of the Constitution. This issue was
examined by the CIC in Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.1 The
full bench of the commission held that the provisions of the RTI Act were not
applicable on the judicial proceedings being conducted by the various judicial or
quasi-judicial bodies, the CIC made the following observations:-
“It is our conclusion therefore that given that a judicial authority must function
with total independence and freedom, should it be found that an action initiated under
the RTI Act impinges upon the authority of that judicial body, the Commission will
not authorize the use of RTI Act for any such disclosure requirement. Section 8(1) (b)
of the RTI Act is quite clear, which gives a total discretion to the court or the tribunal
to decide as to what should be published. An information seeker should, therefore,
approach the concerned court or the tribunal if he intends to have some information
concerning a judicial proceeding and it is for the concerned court or the tribunal to
take a decision in the matter as to whether the information requested is concerning
judicial proceeding either pending before it or decided by it can be given or not.”2
However, it is submitted that the exemption of the judicial proceedings from

the applicability of RTI, Act may not be connected to the status of the courts. It is the
function being performed by this court s which is important in this regard. It is
because of the fact that the independence of the judiciary cannot be compromised
with under the Constitution. Otherwise also, as submitted the provisions of the RTI
Act are very much applicable on the Courts on administrative side and the Courts are
bound to provide such information as and when required. While allowing the appeal
in Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Supreme Court of India3 the CIC (FB) held that the
Supreme Court was bound to reveal such information which had nothing to do with
the judicial proceedings. It was contended before the commission that the RTI Act
applied only to the executive Government and the Supreme Court of India being a
1
Section 4 (1) (d) does not apply to a judicial proceeding conducted by a court or a tribunal as it refers
only to administrative and quasi-judicial decisions of public authorities.
2
Publications, Allahabad, 2012) p. 12
3
CIC/WB/A/2008/00426
207
constitutional body was outside the preview of this Act. The commission held that the
Supreme Court was a public authority under Section 2(h) (a) of the Act. It was further
held that it was also a competent authority to make appropriate rules under the RTI
Act under Section 28 of the Act. The Court observed that the rule making powers had
been explicitly given for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Act empowers the Supreme Court and competent authorities under the Act and
entrusts upon them an additional responsibility of ensuring that the RTI Act is
implemented in letter and spirit. Refuting the plea of ‘personal information’ pertaining
to assets of the Supreme Court Judges the CIC held that the declaration of assets was
filled with the Chief Justice of India was the custodian of this information. The
information was maintained in a confidential manner and like any other official
information it was available for perusal and inspection to every succeeding Chief
Justice of India. The information, therefore, could not be categorized as “personal
information” available with the Chief Justice in their personal capacity. The
commission while analyzing the provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution
observed that the Supreme Court of India, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and
such number of judges as the parliament may by law prescribes was an institution or
authority of which the Honorable Chief Justice of India was the Head. The institution
and its head cannot be two distinct Public Authorities. They are one and the same.
Information, therefore, available with the Chief Justice of India must be deemed to be
available with the Supreme Court of India. The registrar of the Supreme Court of
India, which was only a part of the Supreme Court, could not be categorized as a
Public Authority independent and distinct from the Supreme Court itself. Accordingly
the PIO of the Supreme Court was directed to provide the information asked for by
the applicant, pertaining to declaration of assets etc. by the judges of Supreme Court.1
b. Public Information Officer
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer

designated under the Act:
To deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable
assistance to the persons seeking such information, taking the assistance of any
1
208
other officer, if considered necessary by him or her for the proper discharge of
duties;1
To render ‘all reasonable assistance’, where request for information cannot be
made in writing, to the person making the request orally to reduce the same into
writing;2
To dispose request for information under the Act, either providing the
information requested on payment of prescribed fee or rejecting the request for
reasons to be specified within the time period stipulated under the Act.3
c. Assistant Public Information Officer
Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public

Information Officer designated under the Act to receive applications for information
or appeals under the Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or Appellate Officer or the
Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case
may be.4
d. Officer whose Assistance is Sought
Other Officers whose assistance is sought by a Public Information Officer:
To render all assistance to the Public Information Officer who sought his or her
assistance;
To be treated as a Public Information Officer for the purposes of any
contravention of the provisions of the Act.5
e. Designated Appellate Officer
Designated Appellate Officer (officer senior in rank to Public Information

Officer) shall deal with and dispose
1
Section 5(3) & 5(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
2
Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
3
4
5
209
Appeals from any person who, does not receive a decision on request for
information within the stipulated time or is aggrieved by a decision of the Public
Information Officer;1
Appeal by a third party against an order made by a PIO.2
f. Information Commission
Central Information Commission constituted under Section 12 or State

Information Commission constituted under Section 15 of the Act:
shall receive and inquire into ‘complaints’ from any person relating to access to
information held by or under the control of public authorities (may require
public authorities to compensate the complainants, impose penalties on erring
Public Information Officers and recommend disciplinary action against them;3
shall deal with and dispose appeals against the decisions of the designated
appellate officers (may impose penalties on and recommend disciplinary action
against erring Public Information Officers;4
may make recommendation to public authorities not conforming with the
provisions or the spirit of the Act, specifying the steps to be taken for promoting
such conformity.5
Supremacy of the Commission
This part of the statute declares the supremacy of the Commission under the
Act which otherwise pervades the fabric of the Act in a subtle manner. Within the
frame-work of the entire enforcement machinery the Central Information Commission
and the State Information Commission have been kept supreme in their respective
field of jurisdiction. The commission is the supreme body and above it, the Act does
not conceive any authority for the purpose of enforcement of the Act. In the statutory
structure, the Central/State Public Information Officer is the primary authority who is
at the cutting-edge level to provide for the information required and to facilitate the
applicant under the Act. Thereafter the specific role of the 1st appellate authority
1
2
3
Section 18 (1) to18(4) & Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
4
Section 19 (3) to 19 (5), 19 (7) to 19 (10) & Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
5
210
comes for the limited purpose of 1st appeal under Section 19(1). However, the
commission is not only the 2nd appellate authority but it has to take care of violation
of the Act also. Therefore, the Commission is in a way the custodian of the right
provided under the Act and hence its decisions have been made binding and in a way
final also.
The finality of this order has again been fortified in the provisions of Section
23 of the Act wherein the jurisdiction of all courts has been barred with reference to
any proceedings conducted under the Act. Thus an appeal or complaint against any
order passed under the Act shall lie only in accordance with the provisions of the Act
and it shall not be challenged elsewhere in any court of law. However, as far as the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is concerned the Parliament could do it validity and
after a specific resolution of the Parliament in the Act, the bar on the jurisdiction of
the civil court is justified. However, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 and that of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
cannot be barred in view of the Supreme Court decision in L. Chandra Kumar v.
Union of India.1 It is not permissible to bar such jurisdiction because the judicial
review provided under these articles is part of the very basic structure of the
Constitution which cannot be distrusted in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerela.2
However, notwithstanding the powers of the Supreme Court and the High
Courts under the above provisions of the Constitution, the binding character of the
orders of the Commission under the Right to Information Act, would go a long way in
the enforcement and growth of the right provided under the Act. It is not only in case
of appeals and complaints alone in individual cases, the power of the Commission to
issue orders and directions to Public authorities regarding the enforcement of other
provisions of the Act would be more effective in its binding nature. For example, the
order of the Commission to enforce the provisions of Section 4 in general and Section
4(1) (b) in particular would facilitate the people in a big way by way of its binding
character. Apart from it, otherwise also the Commisssion would enjoy supremacy
more or less to the same extent notwithstanding the supremacy of jurisdiction of the
1
AIR 1997 SC 1125
2
AIR 1973 SC 1461
211
Supreme Court and High Courts. It is because of the fact that interference of these
higher courts is normally not a routine affair and only in exceptional cases these
courts do interfere in the functioning of the statutory authorities. Therefore, the
supremacy of the Commission and the binding nature of its order have a big role to
play in the enforcement of the right to information.
g. Ministries & Departments
Ministries and Departments in Government: shall collect and provide such

information in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction, to the
concerned Information Commission, as is required by it to prepare its annual report
and comply with the requirements concerning the furnishing of that information and
keeping of records for the purposes.1
h. Appropriate Government2
‘Appropriate Government’ is the government in relation to the public authority

dealing with the right to information, such authority is established, constituted,
owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Central Government, union
territory administrations or by the State Governments.
Here in relation to a public authority means-that public authority must be

having relation to the Central Government or the State Government. This relation
with the Central or the State Government is defined by way of the following modes:-
Established: The public authority could be established by either the State or the
Central Government by way of a specific notification in the official gazette.
Constituted: It could be constituted by the said Government under a specific

provision of a statute like various organizations as Central and State Information
Commissions, steel Authority of India etc.
Owned: It may include various State or Central Government departments and Public
Undertakings directly owned by the appropriate Government.
1
2
Section 2 (a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
212
Controlled: Such organizations may not be established, constituted or owned by the

said Government may have effective control over such organizations. The various
cooperative institutions which are being administrated by Government machinery
could be such examples.
Substantially Financed: There could be other organizations as well, which are

substantially financed by the Government through the government may not have any
relation with these organizations by way of any of the foregoing modes directly, but
these are run on Government aid and other organizations like the Government-aided
private educational institutions may be the appropriate examples under this category.
Therefore, the Public Authority which is related to the Government in the

aforesaid manner is covered under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and
such Government is the appropriate Government for the purpose of this act.
The substance of this definition is based on the fact that the Public Authority
must have some meaningful relation with the Government in one of the manners
provided in the Act.
If the Central or the State Government has got one of the relations with such
public authority, such Government would be appropriate Government under the Right
to information Act. This definition is close to the definition of ‘state’ under Article 12
of the Constitution of India. However, the appropriate Government or the Public
Authority should not be taken exactly the same as the ‘state’ under Article 12. The
concept of state in the Constitution is for the enforcement of the fundamental rights
where more effective and pervasive role and control of the Government is required.
But in present context right to information is a statutory right which is basically
envisaged to tame corruption and to effect transparency in the administration.
Therefore, the organizations or the institutions which are even substantially financed
by the government are covered under the Right to Information Act. But mere casual
financial help in a substantial manner. However, as per the spirit of the Act and for the
sake of transparency in the use of Government funds, even if an occasional financial
help is extended by the Government to a private organization, the specific information
limited to the extent of the utilization of such funds may be covered under the
213
provisions of the Right to Information Act and the authorities under the Act should
ensure to impart that information, if demanded.1
The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in
relation to a public authority, may:
cause a copy of the report of the Information Commission laid before the
Parliament or State Legislature, as the case may be;2
may, to the extent of availability of financial and other resources —
a) develop and organize educational programmes to advance the
understanding of RTI, in particular among disadvantaged communities;
b) Encourage public authorities to participate in and themselves undertake
educational programmes on RTI;
c) Promote timely and effective dissemination of accurate information by
public authorities about their activities; and
d) Train Public Information Officers and produce relevant training
materials for use by the public authorities themselves.3
shall, within 18 months from the commencement of the Act, compile in its
official Language a guide containing such guidelines or information, in an easily
comprehensible form and manner, as may reasonably be required by a person
who wishes to exercise any right specified in the Act and, if necessary, update
and publish such guidelines at regular intervals.
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the
provisions of the Act.4
i. Competent Authority5
The term “Competent authority” here means the authority heading the
autonomous and independent institution functioning under the provisions of the
Constitution. These are the institution relating to the Legislature and the Judiciary
1
2
3
4
5
Section 2 (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
214
institutions has more or less the same meaning as that of the appropriate Government
in relation to Public Authorities defined under Section 2(a). The speaker of house of
people or the State Legislative Assembly or the Chairperson in case of Council of
States or the Legislative Council of the State, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
and the High Court are such competent authorities. The President and the Governors
are the competent authorities for the authorities established by or under the
Constitution. Similarly administrators appointed under article 239 of the Constitution
are the competent authority for the purpose of the Act.1
5.11.3 Proactive Disclosure of Information2
Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act provides that every public authority shall:
publish within 120 days from the enactment of the Right to Information Act
(i) The particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
(ii) ii. The powers and duties of its officers and employees;
(iii) The procedure followed in the decision making process, including
channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv) The norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or
under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
(vi) A statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its
control;
(vii) The particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or
representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation
of its policy or implementation thereof;
(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting
of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its
advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees
and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings
are accessible for public;
(ix) A directory of its officers and employees;
1
2
Section 4 (1) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
215
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees,
including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
(xi) The budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all
plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii) The manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts
allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) Xiii.particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations
granted by it;
(xiv) Details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in
an electronic form;
(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information,
including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for
public use;
(xvi) The names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information
(xvii) Officers;
(xviii) Such other information as may be prescribed;
update the publications Section 4(1) (b) (i) to (xvii) every year;
Section 4 (1) (c) of the Act requires that every public authority shall publish
all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions
which affect the public.
Section 4 (1) (d) requires that it shall provide reasons for administrative or
quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Sections 4 (2), (3) & (4) call for a regime of maximum disclosure on the part
of the public authorities suo motu so that the public sparingly resort to the use of the
Right to Information Act to obtain information. The law stipulates that every public
authority shall:
constantly Endeavour to take steps in accordance with publication under Section

4 (1) (b) to provide as much information as possible suo motu to the public at
regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet;
proactively disseminate information widely and in such form and manner which
is easily accessible to the public, subject to taking into consideration the cost
216
effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication

in that local area.1
5.11.4 Procedure for Request for Information2
Section 6 of the Act stipulates that the request for information may be made to
the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, of the concerned public authority or given to the Central Assistant Public
Information officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
The request for information can be made as follows:
• In writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language

of the area in which the application is being made;
• Oral request to be reduced to writing with assistance sought from Public Information
Officer, where such request cannot be made in writing;
• To specify the particulars of the information being sought by the applicant;
• To be accompanied by fee as prescribed under the rules made under the Act;
• applicant not to be required to give reason for requesting the information or any
other personal details except those that may be necessary for the purpose of
contacting. Suggested specimen format for ‘application’ is provided below. It is
important, however, to note that the law does not specify any format(s). The sample
provided below is only for guidance to authorities.3
1
2
3
217
A Model Letter of Application / Request

Date:……..
To,
The Public Information Officer
(Name of the Public Authority)
(Address of the Public Authority)
Sir / Madam:
Sub: Request for Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
[If applicable] Kindly, provide me the following information :………….( Mention the
information you want as specifically and clearly as possible and the period of time to
which the information pertains)
•…
•…
[If applicable] I request for receipt of the information in the following format(s) – true
copy / print out / diskette / floppy / tape / video cassettes / certified copies of
documents or records – in person / by post / by e-Mail.
[If applicable] I would like to inspect the following works / documents / records / take
notes / extracts….. (Mention clearly and specifically what is wanted for inspection).
Kindly inform me the date and time for my visit.
[If applicable] Kindly, provide me certified samples of material (Mention specifically
and clearly the material). I request for receipt of the certified samples (Describe)
………...
The details of fees paid by me are as follows (Specify)….….. /I belong to the ‘Below
Poverty Line Category’ [if applicable, attach a photocopy of the proof] and I am not
required to pay any fees.
Sincerely,
(Applicant’s signature/Thumb Impression)
Applicant’s Name:
Applicant’s Address:
Applicant’s Phone Number/e-Mail Address (optional):
Place:
Date:
Note: This is a suggested format, and need not necessarily be adhered to. The RTI
Act, 2005 does not specify any ‘Model Letter of Application’ for requesting
information.1
1
Agency- Capacity Building for Access to Information Project, July, 2006, p. 40
218
5.11.5 Disposal of Request for Information1
Section 7 of the Act makes provisions regarding the disposal of request for
information as follows:
Request for information shall be disposed by the Public Information Officer

within
30 days of receipt in general cases and 48 hours of receipt in cases where the
information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person;2
A period of 5 days shall be added in computing the response time where an
application for information is given to an Assistant Public Information Officer;3
request to be deemed to have been refused by the Public Information Officer, if
decision on the request for information is not given within the period specified
as above;4
where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further
fee representing the cost of providing the information, the Public Information
Officer shall send an intimation to the person making the request, giving (a) the
details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as
determined by him or her, together with the calculations made to arrive at the
amount in accordance with fee prescribed, requesting him/her to deposit that
fees, and the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and
payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of 30
days and (b) information concerning the right of the person making request with
respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or the form of
access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit,
process and any other forms;5
where access to the record or a part thereof is required to be provided under the
Act and the person to whom access is to be provided is sensorily disabled, the
Public Information Officer shall provide assistance to enable access to the
information, including providing such assistance as may be appropriate for the
inspection;6
1
2
3
4
5
6
219
Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic

format, the applicant shall pay the fee prescribed;1
Before taking any decision to provide information, the Public Information
Officer shall take into consideration the representation made by a third party;2
Where a request has been rejected, the Public Information Officer shall
Communicate to the person making the request —
(i) The reasons for such rejection;

(ii) The period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred;
and
(iii) The particulars of the appellate authority.3
5.11.6 Fees and Costs
The Act prescribes the following fees and costs to be charged from persons
making request for information:
(1) Cost: Section 4 (4) – Cost of medium: electronic or print or print cost price
(2) Fee: Section 6 (1) – Fee accompanying application of request for information
(3) Fee: Section 7 (1) – Fee as prescribed under rules for furnishing information
(4) Fee: Section 7(3) – Further fee representing the cost of providing the
Information requested as determined by PIO
(5) Fee: Section 7 (5) – Fee prescribed under rules for supply of information in
printed or electronic format.
[Fees under Section 7 (3) and Section 7 (5) can be combined together.]
Other charges and costs, if any, need to be specified while disposing requests
for information.
No fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as
may be determined by the appropriate Government;4
1
2
3
4
220
Further, the person making request for information shall be provided the
information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the stipulated
time limits for disposal of request applications;1
The Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India has, under the
Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005, prescribed an
application fee of rupees ten for a request for obtaining information.2 This could be in
cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or by banker’s cheque or by Indian
postal order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority.
The Government of India Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost)

Rules, 2005 provide that the public authority may also charge the following as fees
for providing information.3
a) Rs 2/- for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied.

b) Actual charges or cost of a copy in larger size paper.
c) Actual cost or price for samples or models.
d) For inspection of records, no fees for the first hour; and a fee of Rs 5 for each
hour (or fraction thereof) thereafter.
The fee amounts could be paid in cash against proper receipt or by demand
draft or by banker’s cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of
the concerned public authority.
Further, for providing information under Section 7(5), the prescribed fee
pattern is:
a) For information provided in diskette or floppy - Rs 50/- per diskette or floppy.

b) For information provided in printed form at the price fixed for such
publication or Rs. 2/- per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication.
The above fee pattern could be a model for State Governments to determine
the structure of fees to be applicable in the respective States.4
1
2
Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
3
4
221
5.11.7 Form of Access to Information1
Section 7 (9) provides that information shall ordinarily be provided in the form
in which it is sought unless it would “disproportionately divert the resources of the
public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in
question”.
5.11.8 Time Limits for Disposal of Requests2
The information requested by an applicant to a PIO shall be furnished “as

expeditiously as possible”. The time limits prescribed under the Act for disposal of
requests for information are as follows:
30 days: On receipt of a request for information, the PIO has either to provide
information on payment of such fees as prescribed or reject the request with reasons
for the same.
48 hours: If the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same
has to be provided immediately, in any case, within 48 hours.
35 days: 5 more days to be added to the above time limits if the application is
submitted to the Assistant Public Information Officer.
40 days: Where third party is involved (If the PIO intends to disclose any information
which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as
confidential by it, the PIO has to give a written notice to such third party within 5
days from the receipt of request inviting such third party to make a submission).
45 days: Information pertaining to corruption or human right violations from

scheduled security and intelligence agencies.
Under Section 6 (3) of the Act, if a request application is made to a public

authority on a subject that pertains to another public authority, the same shall be
transferred to that other authority within 5 days from the date of receipt of the
1
2
222
application. The other public authority will be subject to time limit for disposal from
the date of receipt of the application.
As per Section 7 (3) of the Act, the period intervening between the despatch of
intimation to the applicant and the deposit of further fees representing the cost of
providing the information shall be excluded from the time limit of 30 days stipulated.1
5.11.9 Inspection of Work/Record/Taking Sample(s)
Right to Information includes, inter alia, inspection of work, documents,

records, taking notes, extracts and certified samples of material. In consultation with
the concerned sections/ divisions/offices in Government Departments, PIOs may fix a
day or two of the week for applicants to take samples and for inspection of material.
Such an arrangement may not disturb the work in the section/division/office and the
citizen would also be aware of the days of visit to the PIO/Public Authority. The
General Clauses Act, 1897 defines:
‘Document’: shall include any matter written, expressed or described upon any
substance by means of letters figures or marks, or by more than one of those means
which is intended to be used or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that
matter.
Further, the Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) defines some
of the terms used in the RTI Act as follows:
‘Inspect’: look at (something) closely, typically, to assess its condition or to

discover its shortcomings...;
‘Material’: the matter from which a thing is or can be made, things needed for
an activity, the basic material from which a product is made;
‘Sample’: a small part or quantity intended to show what the whole is like;
1
223
‘Work’: activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a

result, denoting things or parts made of a specified material or with specified
tools…denoting a mechanism or structure of a specified kind…1
5.11.10 Grounds for Rejection of Requests
The grounds of rejection of information as specified by the Act pertain to the

following:
(i) Section 8 (1) (a) to 8 (1) (j): Exemptions from disclosure of information
unless there are overriding considerations of public interest.
(j) Section 9: Infringement of the copyright subsisting in a person other than the
State. This is the only absolute exemption. Here the PIO need not consider the
public interest in disclosure.
(k) Section 11: Third party information treated as confidential by the concerned
and involving the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law and
other third party information where the public interest in disclosure does not
outweigh the importance of any possible harm or injury to the interests of such
third party.
(l) Section 24: Information of exempted intelligence and security organisations
except information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights
violations.2
5.11.10.1 Information Exempted from Disclosure
Section 8 of the Act provides a list of 10 categories of information 8 (1) (a) to 8 (1) (j)
as follows:
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty

and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests
of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court
of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
1
2
224
(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of

Parliament or the State Legislature;
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual
property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a
third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public
interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the
competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information;
(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical
safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given
in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension
or prosecution of offenders;
(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers,
Secretaries and other officers Provided that the decisions of Council of
Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the
decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken,
and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters
coming under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has
no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would
causeunwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Public
Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied
that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a
State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.1
The Act provides exemption under the various sub-sections of Section 8(1),
but these exemptions are duly qualified with certain specific conditions. Thus the
exemptions are duly qualified with certain specific conditions. Thus the exemptions
cannot be applied ruthlessly in a routine manner without application of mind.
Whenever, some exemption is applied the detailed reasons for rejection of exempted
1
225
portion have to be communicated to the applicant. This issue came before the CIC
(FB) in Sandeep Unimithan v. MOD.1The main information asked was about the
sinking of INS ‘Khukri’. The information was declined under Section 8(1) (a). The
Commission while directing the PIO to disseminate more and more information under
Section 4(1)(b) of the Act for the benefit of defence studies, also clause did not
exonerate a PIO from the mandatory requirement of Section 7(8)(1) to communicate
the reasons of rejection to the applicant.
5.11.10.2 Primacy of Public Interest
Section 8(2) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything in the Official
Secrets Act, 1923, nor any of the exemptions permissible under Section 8(1) of the
Right to Information Act, a public authority may allow access to information, if
public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.2
In ‘S. P. Gupta v President of India3 Justice Bhagwati, in referring to ‘public

interest’, maintained: “Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting
social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the
enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest
or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”
In State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others4 the Apex
Court held “the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide import covering
public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the
community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.
Copy of the Answer/Question Sheets
In Anil Rana v. S.S.S. Board Delhi,5 allowed the copy of the answer sheet of
the applicant and the marks obtained by the applicant but the photocopies of the
answer sheets of other candidates was declined being a third party information.
1
Appeal No. CIC/B/a/2007/01192
2
3
AIR 1982 SC 149
4
AIR 2006 SC 212
5
CIC/AD/A/2011/001720 decided on 23.09.2011
226
5.11.10.3 Protection of Copyright
Section 9 of the Act provides that without prejudice to the provisions of

Section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer
may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would
involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.1
5.11.10.4 Non-applicability to Certain Organisations
Section 24 (1) provides that the Act shall not apply to the following
intelligence and security organisations established by the Central Government:
1. Intelligence Bureau.
2. Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat.
3. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
4. Central Economic Intelligence Bureau.
5. Directorate of Enforcement.
6. Narcotics Control Bureau.
7. Aviation Research Centre.
8. Special Frontier Force.
9. Border Security Force.
10. Central Reserve Police Force.
11. Indo-Tibetan Border Police.
12. Central Industrial Security Force.
13. National Security Guards.
14. Assam Rifles.
15. Special Service Bureau
16. Special Branch (CID), Andaman and Nicobar.
17. The Crime Branch-C.I.D.-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
18. Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police.
However, the information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human

rights violations shall not be excluded. In the case of information sought in respect of
allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after
the approval of the Central Information Commission, and such information shall be
1
227
provided within 45 days from the date of the receipt of request for information.
Section 24 (4) of the Act stipulates that the Act shall not apply to such intelligence
and security organisations established by the State Government, as that Government
may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. However, the
information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations
shall not be excluded and further that in the case of information sought for in respect
of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided
after the approval of the State Information Commission and such information shall be
provided within 45 days from the date of the receipt of request for information.1
5.11.11 Procedure for Rejection of Requests
A PIO is required under the Act to either provide the information, on payment
of the requisite fee or reject the request within the time limit prescribed. The Act
stipulates that where a request for information is rejected by the PIO, the PIO will
communicate the decision to the person making the request along with:
(i) The reasons for rejection.

(ii) The period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred
(within 30 days of the date of the rejection)
(iii) The particulars of the Appellate Authority.2
5.11.12 Information up to 20 Years
Section 8(3) of the Act stipulates that subject to exemptions relating to

information linked to sovereignty, integrity and security matters, breach of privilege
of Parliament or the State Legislature and cabinet papers, any information relating to
any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened 20 years
before the date on which any request is made, shall be provided to any person making
a request under the Act. However, where any question arises as to the date from
which the period of 20 years has to be computed, the decision of the Central
Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in the Act.3
1
2
3
228
5.11.13 Access to Part of Record
Section 10 provides that where a request for access to information is rejected

on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure,
access may be provided to that part of the record “which does not contain any
information which is exempt from disclosure under the Act” and “which can
reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information”. Where access
is granted to a part of the record the Public Information Officer shall give a notice to
the applicant under Section 10 (2), informing-
(a) that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing
information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;
(b) the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question
of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based;
(c) the name and designation of the person giving the decision;
(d) the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the
applicant is required to deposit; and
(e) His or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding
nondisclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the
form of access provided, including the particulars of the Appellate Officer or
the Information Commission, time limit, process and any other form of
access.1
5.11.14 Third Party Information
“Third Party” is defined under the Act to mean a person other than the citizen
making a request for information and the public authority to which the request is
made. It could be a private individual or a public authority.2 Section 11 of the Act
requires that if the information sought by the citizen pertains to a record or part
thereof relates to, or has been supplied by a third party and if it is not treated as
confidential by that third party, the PIO is at liberty to provide the same to the
applicant. If, however such above information is treated as ‘confidential’ by that third
party, the following steps will have to be taken:
1
2
Section 2(n) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
229
The PIO gives a written notice to the third party, within 5 days of receipt of the
application, and conveys his intention to disclose the information or record
while requiring the third party to make a submission, within 10 days from the
date of receipt of such notice, regarding whether the information should be
disclosed or not.
The third party should, within 10 days from the date of receipt of notice from
the PIO, make a representation in writing or orally against the proposed
disclosure.
The PIO can, within 40 days after the receipt of application for information if
the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation, make a
decision on disclosure and give a written notice to the third party.
The third party is entitled to prefer an appeal against the decision of the PIO.
Except in the case of “trade or commercial secrets protected by law”,

disclosures involving third party information may be allowed, if the public interest in
disclosure outweighs the importance of any possible harm or injury to the interests of
such third party. If the third party is a private individual, the PIO has to be very
cautious and properly weigh the consequences as privacy of an individual is important
and protected under Section 8 (1) (j).
The Hon’ble Supreme court in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative

Officer & ors.1 Has held that under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled
to get only such information which can be accessed by the Public Authority under any
other law for the time being in force. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Poorna Prajna
Public School v. Central Information Commission2 has held that the term ‘held by or
under the control of any public authority’ in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read
in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of term
‘information’ as defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of
the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the
term ‘information’ in Section 2(f) of the RTI ACT. The Hon’ble High Court held that
a ‘private body’ has been used to distinguish and in contradistinction to the term
‘public authority’ as defined in section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, information which a
public authority is entitled to access, under any law, from private body, is
‘information’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished. It
was further held by the Hon’ble High Court that the term ‘third party’ includes not
1
AIR 2010 SC 615
2
Manu/DE/2577/2009
230
only the public authority but also any private body and a third party under Section
2(n) of the RTI Act.
5.11.15 Channels of Appeal
The Act provides two channels of appeals against the decision of a PIO on the
request for information by a citizen – an internal or ‘first’ appeal to a designated
“officer senior in rank’ to the PIO – the first appellate authority (called “Appellate
Officer” in this Manual) as notified by the Public Authority and a ‘second’ appeal to
the Information Commission. The Act also provides for preferring complaints to the
Information Commission regarding no implementation of the legal provisions.
If an applicant is aggrieved by the decision of a PIO, he or she can make an

appeal to the Appellate Officer who, as required by law, would be an “officer senior
in rank” to the PIO.
A second appeal, against the decision of the Appellate Officer, lies to the
Information Commission.1
5.11.16 Disposal of First Appeals
Section 19 (1) and (2) of the Act stipulate that any person who, does not
receive a decision on request for information within the stipulated time or is aggrieved
by a decision of the Public Information Officer including communication of fees to be
paid may within 30 days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a
decision prefer an appeal to the designated Appellate Officer, senior in rank to the
Public Information Officer. The Appellate Officer may admit the appeal after the
expiry of the period of 30 days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Where an appeal is
preferred against an order made by a Public Information Officer to disclose third party
information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within 30 days
from the date of the order.2
1
2
231
A Model of Appeal, which can be used for the First Appeal, is placed
below:
Date:…….…….
To,
The Appellate Officer
(Name of the Public Authority)
(Address of the Public Authority)
An appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Ref: [PIO/Appellate Officers’ Decision Reference No. & Date, received on
……. (Date)
/Date of Deemed Refusal]
Dear Sir / Madam:
[Please describe the details about Appeal and Grounds why Appeal is preferred:
Date & Description of the Application:

Name and Address of the PIO:
Details of Decision of the PIO:
Grounds of Appeal:
Decision Requested:
Sincerely,
(Appellant’s signature)
Appellant’s Name:
Appellant’s Address:
Appellant’s Phone Number / e-Mail Address (optional):
Place:
Date:
Note: This is a suggested format, and need not be necessarily adhered to. The RTI
Act, 2005 does not specify any ‘Model of Appeal’ for preferring appeal.
The Act prescribes that the appeal shall be disposed of within 30 days of the
receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of 45 days
from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in
writing.1
1
232
5.11.17 Inquiry into Complaints
Section 18 (1) of the Act stipulates that the Information Commission shall
receive and inquire into a complaint from any person —
(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Public Information Officer either
by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because
the Assistant Public Information Officer has refused to accept his or her
application for information or appeal under the Act for forwarding the same to
the Public Information Officer or Appellate Officer or the Information
Commission as the case may be;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under the Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to
information within the time limit specified under the Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers
unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false
information under the Act; and
(f) In respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to
records under the Act.
The Commission may initiate an inquiry in respect of complaint, if satisfied

that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter.
Section 18 further stipulates that while inquiring into a complaint, the

Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a
suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters,
namely:—
(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give
oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;
(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and
(f) Any other matter which may be prescribed.
233
Further, the Commission, during the inquiry of any complaint under the Act,
may examine any record to which the Act applies which is under the control of the
public authority. No such record may be withheld from it on any grounds
notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament or
State Legislature, as the case may be.1
5.11.18 Disposal of Second Appeals
Section 19 (3) of the Act provides that a second appeal against the decision of
the Appellate Officer shall lie within 90 days from the date on which the decision
should have been made or was actually received, with the Information Commission.
The Information Commission may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of
90 days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from
filing the appeal in time.
If the decision of the Public Information Officer against which an appeal is

preferred relates to information of a third party, the Information Commission shall
give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.2
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Santosh Kumar,3 the High Court of Delhi

was examining an issue whether second appeal could be entertained by the CIC
without requiring the respondent to first exhaust the remedy of a first appeal. Hether a
penalty could be imposed in such appeal under Section 20 without exhaustion of
remedy in first appeal. The High Court clarified that the non-exhaustion of the remedy
of the first appeal by the respondent would not have made any difference to the fact
that he had violated the provisions of the RTI Act, which attracted the penal
provisions under Section 20. There was no bar to hear the second appeal directly.
5.11.19 Onus of Proof
Section 19 (5) of the Act provides that in any appeal proceedings, the onus to
proof that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Public Information Officer
who denied the request.4
1
2
3
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Santosh Kumar , Decided on 01.09.2010
4
234
5.11.20 Decisions in Second Appeals
The Act provides that appeal filed before the Information Commission shall be
decided by it in accordance with the prescribed procedure and its decision shall be
binding. The Information Commission has the power to—
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to
secure compliance with the provisions of the Act, including—
i. by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular

form;
ii. by appointing a Public Information Officer;
iii. by publishing certain information or categories of information;
iv. by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the
maintenance, management and destruction of records;
v. by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for
its officials;
vi. by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of
subsection (1) of section 4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or
other detriment suffered;
(c) impose any of the penalties provided under the Act;
(d) Reject the application.1
The Information Commission is legally bound to give notice of its decision,

including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.2
5.11.21 Appeal Procedure
The Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, has through

a notification on ‘Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005’
prescribed the procedure for deciding appeal by the Central Information Commission.
These Rules require that the Order of the Commission shall be pronounced in open
1
2
235
proceeding and be in writing duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer
authorized by the Commission for this purpose.
The Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005
Contents of appeal:
i. Name and address of the appellant;

ii. Name and address of the Central Public Information Officer against the
decision of whom the appeal is preferred;
iii. Particulars of the order including number, if any, against which the appeal is
preferred;
iv. Brief facts leading to the appeal;
v. If the appeal is preferred against deemed refusal, the particulars of the
application, including number and date and name and address of the Central
Public Information Officer to whom the application was made;
vi. Prayer or relief sought;
vii. Grounds for the prayer or relief.
viii. Verification by the appellant; and
ix. Any other information which the Commission may deem necessary for
deciding the appeal.
Documents to accompany appeal:
i. Self-attested copies of the Orders or documents against which the appeal is

being preferred;
ii. Copies of documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the
appeal; and
iii. An index of the documents referred to in the appeal.
Procedure in deciding appeal
i. hear oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from concerned or

interested person;
ii. peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof;
iii. inquire through authorised officer further details or facts;
236
iv. hear Central Public Information Officer, Central Assistant Public Information
Officer or such Senior Officer who decide the first appeal, or such person
against whom the complaint is made, as the case may be;
v. hear third party; and
vi. receive evidence on affidavits from Central Public Information Officer,
Central Assistant Public Information Officer, such Senior Officer who decided
the first appeal, such person against whom the complaint lies or the third
party.1
5.11.22 Imposition of Penalty
Section 20 (1) of the Act provides that the Commission, while deciding a
complaint or appeal, shall impose penalty on erring PIOs in cases where the PIO has,
without any reasonable cause:
refused to receive an application for information or

has not furnished information within the time specified2 or
Malafidely denied the request for information or
Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or
destroyed information which was the subject of the request or
obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.
The scale of the penalty to be imposed is Rs.250 each day till application is
received or information is furnished subject to the total amount of such penalty not
exceeding Rs.25, 000. The Information Commission is legally bound to give the
Public Information Officer a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the
Commission before any penalty is imposed on him or her. The burden of proving that
a Public Information Officer acted reasonably and diligently shall be on himself or
herself.3
1
2
3
237
5.11.23 Disciplinary Action
Section 20 (2) of the Act provides that the Commission shall, while deciding a
complaint or appeal, recommend for disciplinary action against the Public
Information Officer under the service rules applicable to him or her in cases where the
PIO has, without any reasonable cause and persistently:
• failed to receive an application for information or

• has not furnished information within the time specified or
• malafidely denied the request for information or
• knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or
• destroyed information which was the subject of the request or
• obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.1
5.11.24 Action in Good Faith
Section 21 of the Act provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal

proceeding shall lie against any person for action done in good faith under the Act or
rules.
5.11.25 Overriding Effect of Act
Section 22 of the Act contends that the provisions of the Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act,
1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect
by virtue of any law other than the Act.
This Act has been given an overriding effect on the other Acts including the
Official Secrets Act 1923. These Acts have not been revoked but the same have been
suppressed to the extent that these Acts come into conflict with provisions of this Act.
The conflicting provisions of these Acts would give way to the right envisaged under
this Act which has become absolute to that effect notwithstanding the conflict
provisions available under some other enactments. For example, if any provision of
1
238
the Official Secrets Act 1923 prohibits the publication of a particular information
shall be published notwithstanding the provisions otherwise provided under the
Official Secrets Act, 1923.
This overriding provision would have a distinguishing impact on the Acts or

Rules so affected. Such enactments would not be absolutely rendered ineffective. To
the extent these enactments come into conflict with the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, these would be rendered anfractuous, but beyond that the same
would survive. In fact the conflicting provisions of such affected enactments would be
in a situation of eclipse or suspended hibernation. If any point of time due to any
amendment in Right to Information Act, the conflict with such provisions is
eliminated to any extent, the hibernated provisions of such enactments would be
revived and the same would come into effect to the extent the same are not in conflict
with the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Thus section 22 of the Act does
not revoke the conflicting Acts and Rules available in this regard and the same are
simply overridden resulting in the consequences as explained.1
It is admitted that the expression ‘public interest’ is not capable of precise

definition and it has no rigid meaning, it takes color from the statute in which the
expression has been used. It varies from case to case and as observed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh,2what is ‘public interest’ today
may not remain so a decade later. Public interest therefore, can be taken to be what is
the opposite of a private interest of a person. Public interest must concern either the
public in general or at least a section of the public. It cannot be the solitary interest of
one single individual.
5.11.26 Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts
Section 23 of the Act provides that no court shall entertain any suit,
application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under the Act and no
such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under the
Act.
1
Abhe Singh Yadav, Right to Information Act, 2005 An Analysis, (Third Edition Central Law
2
AIR 1952 SC 252
239
This Section formally bars the jurisdiction of the courts with respect to the
provisions of the Act. It provides that no order passed under this Act would be called
in question in any court of law except by way of appeal as provided under this Act. As
a matter of standard practice while enacting a particular statute, if the specific
statutory remedies are provided therein, the jurisdiction of civil courts is specially
barred. This is keeping in view the fact that the statute deals with a particular subject
and the statutory machinery provided for this purpose is supposed to have expertise in
the subject. Therefore, it is expected that such machinery could deal with such issues
related to the particular subject in a better and efficient manner. Moreover, it avoids
delay also and the relief available under the statute is available in a better and handy
manner without resorting to the complicated procedure of civil courts. In addition to
it, the flow of legal procedure under a particular statute is not unnecessarily
interrupted by the interim orders of civil courts. So, for all the reasons the jurisdiction
of civil courts is normally barred in such statutory proceedings.
However, in the present Act the jurisdiction of all courts has been barred
which include the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court also.
However, the same cannot be sustained in view of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.1 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Article 32 and that of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be taken away
by any statute or law enacted by the Legislature. These powers of judicial review are
part of the basic structure of constitution and as per the law propounded in
Kesavanand Bharti case2 it cannot be taken away by any Act of the legislature.
Therefore, to that extent the provisions of the present section cannot be applied
notwithstanding the specific declaration under this section to this effect. Therefore,
any decision taken under this Act can be challenged in the Supreme Court as well in
the High Courts.3
5.11.27 Report of Information Commission
The Right to Information Act 2005 mandates annual reports to be submitted

by the Central and State Information Commissions.4 The key provisions in the Act in
this regard pertain to the following:
1
AIR 1997 SC 1125
2
AIR 973 SC 1461
3
Abhe Singh Yadav, Right to Information Act, 2005 An Analysis, (Third Edition Central Law
4
Section 25(1), (3) & (4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
240
• the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the

case may be, shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, prepare a
report on the implementation of the provisions of the Act during that year and
forward a copy thereof to the appropriate Government;
• each report shall state in respect of the year to which the report relates,—
a. the number of requests made to each public authority;

b. the number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to access to
the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of the Act under
which these decisions were made and the number of times such
provisions were invoked;
c. the number of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission
or State Information Commission, as the case may be, for review, the
nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals;
d. particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect
of the administration of this Act;
e. the amount of charges collected by each public authority under this Act;
f. any facts which indicate an effort by the public authorities to administer
and implement the spirit and intention of the Act;
g. recommendations for reform, including recommendations in respect of
the particular public authorities, for the development, improvement,
modernisation, reform or amendment to the Act or other legislation or
Common law or any other matter relevant for operationalising the right
to access information;
• the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, as
soon as practicable after the end of each year, cause a copy of the report of the
Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the
case may be to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be,
before each House of the State Legislature, where there are two Houses, and
where there is one House of the State Legislature before that House. Section
25 (2) of the Act clearly specifies that each Ministry or Department shall, in
relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction, collect and provide
such information to the Central Information Commission or State Information
241
Commission, as the case may be, as is required by the Commission to prepare

its annual report and comply with the requirements concerning the furnishing
of that information and keeping of records for the purposes.
5.12 Working of Right to Information Act, 2005
The Right to Information Act became operational on October 12, 2005. This
law empowered Indian citizens to seek information from public authorities, thus
making the government and its functionaries more accountable and responsible. The
Right to Information Act 2005 is an important piece of legislation aimed at enhancing
transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities. Its enactment
signals an important shift in the attitude of the government as it accepts the need to
move from the culture of secrecy to greater openness. India inherited its
administrative set-up from British colonial administration which was mainly directed
to protect the interest of Britishers. The Government of India through the enactment
of this Act took a landmark decision through which transparency and people’s
participation in development process could become a reality in development process.1
RTI Act has the widest possible reach, covering the legislative, judiciary and
executive branches of the government as well as non-government institutions
receiving government grants and subsidies. This Act is one of the most progressive
laws enacted by our Parliament with stringent penalities for failing to provide
information or preventing access in any way. The Act imposes obligation on public
authorities to disseminate maximum information suomoto, thus reducing the cost to
the citizens and workloads of the public authorities. However in spite of all these
positive features the RTI Act still suffer from some weaknesses.
One of the essential prerequisite features of right to information is that it

should have minimum exemptions but in India both Judiciary and Army want to avail
several exceptions. The fact that there should be minimum exception is supported by a
section of lawyers who believe that there was no reason for the judiciary to seek
exemption from the Right to Information Act for administrative matters, when judges
function in open courts and their judgements are public documents. Speaking at Rai
Bahadur M.S. Oberoi Media Awards 2006, Justice Verma, in his key-note address,
1
Roy, Jaytilak uha, “Second Administrative Reform Commission on Right to Information: A Critical
Review” op.cit, pp. 558-62
242
underlined the need for more transparency and for eradicating corruption. He said, “I
see no reason why the administrative work of the judiciary should remain a secret
when judgements in crucial matters are open to the public”. He also said that the
Right to Information Act was an important tool in eradicating corruption and that the
right to know is crucial in democracy so that citizens could take informed decisions
and exercise their rights at citizens.1 National security is no longer the only reason
why the Army wants to remain outside the purview of RTI Act. In a revent internal
presentation, the Army has said that an overwhelming bulk of applications it receives
is highly “individual”, seeking “personal information”, and therefore manipulating a
law that is meant to serve “a larger purpose of public interest”.2
Goal RTI legislation needs to ensure that information is provided by the

government in a timely manner in order for it to be effectively used. To achieve this
penalty a clause was introduced in the Act. But since no penalties are being imposed
on the officials, timely delivery of information its not happening due to which people
have started loosing faith in RTI. It activists also alleged that non-imposition of
penalty has increased the work load of the commission.3
These are several cases, where, though the Cheaf Information Commissioner
has passed order for information to be furnshid to the applications, the concerned
government departments had refused to comply.
The activist maintains that government officials have figured out that nothing
can be done if they do not comply with the CSI’s orders. They are refusing CSI orders
are not even being penalised for the same. Magsaysay Award and RTI activist Arvind
Kejriwal said that officers who appear before the CSI for hearings find out that they
will not be penalized if they do not comply so they simply do not furnish in formation
and they do not even reply with CSI notices. The activist claims that since all the five
commissioners are former bureacrates, they tend to favour officials and are reluctant
to fine them.4 Invoking penalty against the officials for late and/ or incomplete and /or
misleanding information will greatly serve to enhance the RTI.
1
Asian Age, New Delhi, 12 January, 2007, Judiciary must not be exempt from RTI Act.
2
Indian Express, New Delhi, 10th January, 2007, why Army wants to be exempted from RTI
3
Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 20th February, 2007, RTI activist launch campaign against CIS for
Shoddy functioning
4
Asian Age, New Delhi, 5th March, 2007, RTI Act: Complaint. But no action
243
In the RTI Act the phrase ‘public interest’ has been used repeatedly but what
is the exact meaning of the phrase has not been defined in the Act. According to the
Act, a public authority may allow access to information if public interest in disclosure
outweighs the harm to the protected interest. It is clear that most or all exemption
provisions should pass through a public interest balancing test which require
disclosure if public interest consideration favouring disclosure outweighs those
favouring non-disclosure. Unless the phrase ‘public interest’ is properly defined in the
Act there is lot of scope for its misuse as the public information officers can
selectively use public interest rider to disclose or withhold information. Similarly, in
the Act the phrase ‘substantially financed’ has not been defined properly while
defining the term ‘public authority’.1 In section 2 (h), public authority has been
defined as an authority or body or institution of self government established or
constituted inter-alia by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
government and include any;
i. body owned, controlled or substantially financed; and

ii. Non-government organization substantially finance directly or indirectly by
the funds provided by appropriate government.2
In this Act the phrase substantially financed has been used without having any
mention of qualifying limit and amount. This omission in explaining the phrase will
result in different interpretation of the term by different states and public authorities.
This may lead to inaction on the pary of the styate government as in the case in
Uttrakhand where no decision has been made on the issue of notifying NGOs as
public authorities as required by the Act.3
Although right to information is recognized as a necessary condition to

improve governance but up till now it is not sufficient enough to achieve this as lot
more need to be done to usher accountability in governance like including proviosion
for protection of whistle blowers. Protection of whistle blowers is an essential element
in the concept of right to information because in the absence of this protection it will
1
B.P. Maithani, Some Grey Areas of RTI Act, Uttarakhand Information Commission Publication,
16/2007, pp. 3-5
2
Right to Information Act, 2005
3
B.P. Maithani, Some Grey Areas of RTI Act, Uttarakhand Information Commission Publication,
16/2007, pp. 4-5
244
be extremely difficult for the insiders to highlight the corrupt practices that are going
on in the organization.1 Without “Whistle Blowers Protection Act”, the Right to
Information Act by itself will not serve a very effective purpose, the reason being that
if a citizen ‘gets information’ same and he uses the same for promoting and protecting
public interst, he continuously runs the risk of being assaulted and humiliated along
with his family members. Therefore, if such a law is not passed by India, then to that
extent this will remain incomplete and inadequate.
One of the main reasons for the introduction of RTI Act was to help the
citizens in making informed choices and ensure accountability in the system by
seeking information from the administration but due to lack of proper awareness
among the citizens regarding the use of this Act the purpose remains defeated. Section
26 of the Act states that the appropriate government may develop and organize
educational programmes to advance the understanding of the public, especially
disadvantaged communities, regarding how to exercise the rights contemplated under
the Act. However, as per the survey carried out by price water house Coppers; it was
revealed that only 15 percent of the respondents were aware of the RTI Act.2 It is also
important to highlight that the quality of RTI awareness in common public is
significantly low. While the Act has been clear in defining the responsibility of the
appropriate government, with respect to creating awareness on the Act, there has been
lack of initiative from the government’s side.3 The efforts made by appropriate
governments and public authorities have been restricted to publishing of rules and
FAQs on websites. These efforts have not been helpful in generating mass awareness
of the RTI Act.
In order to make RTI effective and easily accessible to people, the Act made a
provision under Section 6 which PIOs are required to provide reasonable assistance to
the applicant in drafting and submiision of the application and under Section 5(3) of
RTI Act, it is expected of the PIO to assist citizens in drafting RTI applications.4 But
in most of the cases instead of getting assistance, the applicants are discouraged by
1
S. L.Goel, “Right to information and Administrative Reforms”, op. cit, p. 556
2
Final Report 2009, Understanking the “Key issues and constrains” in implementing the RTI Act,
Price water house Coppers, June 2009, http://www.righttoinformtion.gov.in/rticorner/studybypwc/
key_issue.pdf.
3
<http://www.righttoinformtion.gov.in/rticorner/studybypwc/key_issue.pdf.>acces June 2009
4
<http://www.righttoinformtion.gov.in/rticorner/studybypwc/key_issue.pdf>
245
the authorities from seeking information and even the quality of information which is
provided is inadequate. There are some cases in which the applicant’s application was
refused by the Zila Parishad and the public works department saying that they are
unaware of the Act. The desired information was made available only when they
approached the State Information Commissioner.1
Apart from poor quality of information being provided there are authorities
who temper with the information to prevent it from reaching the people. Citizen-
campaigners are reporting missing information in a small but significant number of
cases.They believes officials who are reluctant to release information simply make it
vanish. A call for stringent action if ‘missing document’ cases were made at a national
convention of RTI campaigners in Pune. Among other things they suggested was a
submission of a list of officials who are custodians of the missing documents, filling
criminal cases against them, fining guilty officers and probes into deficient record
maintaining system.2
Lack of trained PIOs and first appealate authorities is attributed to the greatest
impediment in the proper implementation of the Act. Nikhil Dey of Mazdoor Kissan
Shakti Sangthan, a people’s organization, which spearheaded the right to ionformation
movement in the state, said that thousands of citizens sought information under the
Act in various part of the state but the government had lagged behind in creating a
conducive atmosphere and making provision for imparting information “the
government’s role has been most disappointing. It did not make adequate rules nor
trained the staff or provided support to the commission”.3
In effective record management system and collection of information from

field offices is leading to delay in the processing of RTI applications: as per Section
4(1a) of the Act, a public authority needs to maintain all its records duly catalogued
and indexed in a manner and form which facilitites the Right to Information under this
Act. Public authority should also ensure that all records that are appropriate to be
computerized with in a reasonable time. These records should be connected through a
network all over the country that records can be accessed on different systems.
1
Indian Express, Guwahati, 26th May, 2007, Roadblock: RTI Applicants under threat in Assam
2
Times of India, Pune, 26th May, 2007, RTI runs into problem
3
The Hindu, Jaipur, 3rd February, 2007, RTI Act a mixed bag for Information seekers
246
Information provider survey indicated that record management system plays a vital
role in timely disposal of a RTI application. Yet, 38% of the PIOs cited record
management system as a reason for delay in processing RTI requests.
Further 79% of PIOs cited collection of information from filed offices as a

cause of delay. These finding points towards a weak record management system being
followed where critical field level information is not available at the higher levels of
hierarchy.1
Non-availability of basic infrastructure is also acting as the biggest hurdle in

the implementation of RTI Act. The implementation of RTI requires the PIOs to
provide the information to the applicant through photocopies, soft copies, etc. While
these facilities are considered to be easily available at a District level, it is a challenge
to get information from block/panchayat level. PIOs highlight that the lack of
infrastructure hampers the RTI implementation at the PA level. In order to service
RTI requests, basic infrastructure such as photocopier and connectivity is required.
Apart of it the use of information technology in acceptance or delivery of RTI
applications is minimal in the public authorities.
Issolated IT solutions have been developed by a few departments

independently but these systems are just restricted to tracking the status of RTI
applications. Another negative feature noticed in the implementation of Indian RTI
Act is high level of pendency. The number of RTI appeals with the Information
Commission is growing at a rapid pace year after year. In Maharashtra, the number of
appeals grew to 15959 in 2007; in the coming years this pace of growth of second
appeals is ecpected to be sustained due to increasing awareness and usage of RTI Act
by citizens. With current volumes of appeals, there seem to be delays in disposing of
cases. In Maharashtra SIC, there is a “wait period” of more than 12 months, thus
discouraging citizens from filling appeals. In fact, in all the States surveyed except
Assam, the “wait period” is usually more than three months. This is a grave situation,
which requires urgent intervention for the RTI Act to survive the threat of landing in a
situation of “justice delayed”. The pendency at the Information Commission is a huge
1
Final Report 2009, Understanking the “Key issues and constrains” in implementing the RTI Act,
Price water house Coppers, June 2009, http://www.righttoinformtion.gov.in/rticorner/studybypwc
/key_issue.pdf.
247
challenge. Unless and until the pendency is kept at manageable level, the objective of
the Act would not be met. High pendency of appeals is due to non-
non-optimal process for
disposing of appeals and complaints.
Information is not just to be passively received by citizens but the State must
activily seek information from the people in order to function effectively in their
interests. Apart from ensuring systems wherein people’s experiences influence
influen State
activities the RTI must ensure that there is space for expanding and/or altering the
practice of governance and access to justice based on people’s experience. The law
cannot be conceived of as complete when formulated as such, and must be seen as
continuely evolving through; insights from implementation efforts and the struggles
of the citizens in accessing our rights.

5 Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIGHT TO

Justice P.B. Sawant

Before passing of this Act, Disclosure of Government Information in India

The Right to Information is derived from our fundamental right of freedom of

5.1 Right to Information Movement in India

5.2 Colonial Acts and Denial of the Information

5.3 Constitution and Right to Information

The Preamble to the Constitution describes India as a Sovereign Democratic

Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution guarantee ‘right to constitutional

As a result of the prolonged Indian national movement against the British

The development of the right to information as a part of the Constitution Law

5.4 Civil Society and Right to Information

The Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information

“Everyone, everywhere, at any time should have the opportunity to participate

“A democratic perspective on information and communication societies, in

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is an important legislation that provides

Under the RTI Act, Civil Society Organisations can:

Demand from the Government information pertaining to any of its

At the same time, NGOs substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds

• Organising local, regional, and national consultations of partners;

Strengthening participatory mechanisms

organizations in monitoring the implementation of provisions under the RTI Act.

Organising awareness campaigns on Right to Information;

Promoting capacity enhancement

The effective implementation of the RTI Act requires strengthening of the

CSOs can help build capacities by:

• Preparing model local agendas on RTI and facilitate their implementation;

Initiate and promote enabling approaches

Information sharing among various civil society partners;

• By helping women participate in knowing their rights through access to

Strategies for Civil Society Organisations

community mobilization, regular impact assessment and evaluation studies and

5.5 Efforts of the MKSS towards Right to Information Act

Put on the backburner with a change of guard at the Centre in quick

5.6 Public Hearing is the Genesis of Right to Information Movement

Community Based Organizations and External Observers etc. will participate. In

5.7 Pioneering States in Introducing Right to Information Act

The grassroots movement led by MKSS compelled the Rajasthan Government

The Karnataka Government took steps to make information available to the

provided for an appeal to an independent body, as well as establishing an advisory

Even, before a bill was introduced in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly, in

5.8 Justification for Right to Information

To understand the importance of right to information, it is also necessary to

Any government, democratic or otherwise, may abuse its powers if it is

The basis of self-government is that each individual in the community has a

The people as a sovereign should, therefore, have access to all information.

Another justification of right to information is found in the interests of

It has taken many in India for a transformation from an opaque system of

The information sought may be in the public or private domain. The

5.9 Historical Background of the RTI Act

Disclosure of Government Information in India is governed by a law enacted

5.10 Scope of the RTI Act

Whereas the constitution of India has established democratic Republic; and

5.11 The Right to Information Act, 2005: An Overview

5.11.1 Citizen’s Right to Information1

Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states: “Subject to the

“Any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails,

Memos: Memos may be in the form of a correspondence or a note on a particular