LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Name of the Institute – MET Institute of Management Studies

Batch – MFM – 2010-2013–1st Semester

Subject – Business Law

Project given by - Prof. Dhogade

Name of the Project - LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Contribution by;

Sr. No. Name of the Student Roll No.

Page 1 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

I-N-D-E-X

INTRODUCTION

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (RIGHT TO INFORMATION) ACT, 2005

OBJECTIVE & DEFINITIONS

OBLIGATIONS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY

DESIGNATION & DUTIES OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS (PIO)

REQUEST FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION

EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE

REJECTION OF REQUEST

WHO IS EXCLUDED?

PARTIAL DISCLOSURE ALLOWED

Page 2 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

POWERS OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

APPELLATE AUTHORITIES

PENALTIES

JURISDICTION OF COURTS

DECISIONS OF COURT

LATEST CASE STUDIES

BIBILIOGRAPHY

Page 3 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

 INTRODUCTION
Throughout the world, the right to information is seen by many as the key to
strengthening participatory democracy and ensuring more people-centered
development. Nearly 70 countries around the World have now adopted
comprehensive Freedom of information Acts to facilitate access to records held by
government bodies and another fifty have pending efforts. In India also, the
Government enacted Right to Information (RIGHT TO INFORMATION) Act in 2005 which came
into force w.e.f October 12, 2005.

 RIGHT TO KNOW

Before dwelling on the Right to Information Act, 2005, mention should be made that in
R.P.Limited v Indian Express Newspapers, the Supreme Court read into Article 21
the right to know. The Supreme Court held that right to know is a necessary
ingredient 'Of participatory democracy. In view of transnational developments when
distances are shrinking, international communities are coming together for cooperation in various
spheres and they are moving towards global perspective In
various fields Including Human Rights, the expression "liberty" must receive an
expanded meaning. The expression cannot be limited to mere absence of bodily
restraint. It is wide enough to expand to full range of rights including right to hold a
particular opinion and right to sustain and nurture that opinion. For sustaining and
nurturing that opinion it becomes necessary to receive information. Article 21 confers
on all persons a right to know which include a right to receive information.

It may be pointed out that the right to impart and receive information is a species
of the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1) (a) of our Constitution
guarantees to all citizens freedom of speech and expression. At the same time,
Article 19(2) permits the State to make any law in so far as such law imposes
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by Article 19(1) (a) of
the constitution in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the
State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, morality, contempt
of court, defamation and incitement of offence.

Page 4 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Thus, a citizen has a right to receive information and that right is derived from the
concept of freedom of speech and expression comprised in Article 19(1) (a). The
State is not only under an Obligation to respect the Fundamental Rights of the
citizens, but it is equally under an obligation to ensure conditions under which these
lights can meaningfully and effectively be enjoyed by one and all.

Right to freedom of speech and expression in Art.19 (1)(a) carries with it the right
to propagate and circulate one's views and opinions subject to reasonable restrictions
as mentioned above. The prerequisite for enjoying this right is knowledge and
information. Information adds something "new to our awareness and removes
vagueness of our ideas".

 THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (RIGHT TO INFORMATION) ACT, 2005

The Right to Information Act, 2005 provides an effective framework for effectuating the right to
information recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution. It
may be pointed out that the RicJht to Information Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on
May 11, 2005 and by the Rajya Sabha on May 12, 2005 and received the assent of
the President on June 15, 2005. The Act considered as watershed legislation, is the
most significant milestone in the history of Right to Information movement in India
allowing transparency arid autonomy and access to accountability.

 SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT

 The Right to Information Act extends to the whole of India except Jammu & Kashmir.

 It provides a very definite day for its commencement t.e. 120 days from
enactment.
 It shall apply to Public Authorities,

 All citizens shall have the right to information, subject to provisions of the Act.

 The Public Information Officers/Assistant Public Information Officers will be

responsible to deal with the requests for information and also to assist
persons seeking information.
Page 5 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

 Fee will be payable by the applicant depending on the nature of Information

sought.

 Certain categories of information have been exempted from disclosure under

Section 8 and 9 of the Act.

 Intelligence and security agencies specified in Schedule II to the Act h::1VP

been exempted from the ambit of the Act, subject to certain conditions.

 OBJECTIVE
As stated above, the Right to Information Act confers on all citizens a right to information. The Act
provides for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to
secure access to information held by public authorities to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority.

 DEFINITIONS

The meaning of important terms has been incorporated under section 2 of the
Right to Information Act. These have been discussed herein below:

―Public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self government established or
constituted –
- By or under the Constitution:
- By any other law made by Parliament;
- By and other law made by State Legislature;
- By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Govt. [Section 2(h)]

―Record" includes -
- any document, manuscript and file;
- any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;

- any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether

enlarged or not): and
- any other material produced by a computer or any other device [Section 2(I)]
Page 6 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

."Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents,

memos, e-mails.opinions.advices.pr~ •• s 'releases, circulars, orders, logbooks,
contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic
form, [Section 2(f)]

"Right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act
which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to -
- taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;
- inspection of work, documents, records;
- taking certified samples of material;
- 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; [Section 2( j ) ]

"Third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for
information and includes a public authority. [Section 2(n)]

 OBLIGATIONS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY

Every public authority under the Act has been entrusted with a duty to maintain
records and publish manuals, rules, regulations, instructions, etc. in its possession as
prescribed under the Act. [Section 4( 1 )(a))

As per Section 4(1 )(b), every public authority has to publish within one hundred
and twenty days of the enactment of this Act:
- the particulars of its organization, functions and duties;
- the powers and duties of its officers and employees;

- the procedure followed in its decision making process, including channels of

supervision and accountability;

- the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions:

Page 7 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
- the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records used by its
employees for discharging its functions;

- a statement of the categories of the documents held by it or under its control;

- the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or

representation by the members of the public, in relation to the formulation of
policy or implementation thereof;

- a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting

of two or more persons constituted by it. Additionally, information as to
whether the meetings of these are open to the public, or the minutes of such
meetings are accessible to the public;
- a directly of its officers and employees;

- the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees,

including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;

- the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all
plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;

- the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts

allocated and the details and beneficiaries of such programmes;

- particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by

it;

- details of the information available to, or held by it, reduced in an electronic

form;

- 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; '.

- the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information

Officers.

- Such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update the

publications every year

Page 8 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
 DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS (PIO)

Every public authority has to-

- Designate in all administrative units or offices Central or State Public
Information Officers to provide information to persons who have made a
request for the information.
- Designate at each sub-divisional level or sub-district level Central Assistant
or State Assistant Public Information Officers to receive the applications for
information or appeals for forwarding the same to the Central or State Public
Information Officers.
- No reason to be given by the person making request for information except
those that may be necessary for contacting him. (Section 5)

 DUTIES OF A PUBLIC IFORAMTION OFFICER (PIO)

PIO shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and where the
request cannot be made in writing, to render reasonable assistance to the person to
reduce the same in writing. If the information requested for is held by or its subject
matter-is closely connected with the function of another public authority, the PIO shall
transfer, within 5 days, the request to that other public authority and inform the
applicant immediately.
PIO may seek the assistance of any other officer for the proper discharge of
his/her duties. PIO, on receipt of a request, shall as expeditiously as possible, and in
any case Within 30 days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information
on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the
reasons specified in S.8 or S.9.

Where the information requested for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the
same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. If the PIO falls to give
decision on the request within the period specified, he shall be deemed to
have refused the request.
Page 9 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Where a request has been rejected, the PIO shall communicate to the requester -
(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.

PIO shall provide Information 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.

If allowing particular access, the PIO shall give a notice to the applicant, informing:

- that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record
containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;
- the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question
of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based;
- the name and designation of the person giving the decision;
- the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which
the applicant is required to deposit; and
- his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-
disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of
access provided.

If information sought has been supplied by third party or is treated as confidential

by that third party, the PIO shall give written notice to the third party within 5 days
from the receipt of the request.

Third party must be given a chance to make a representation before the PIO
within 10 days. from the date of receipt of such notice. (Sections 5, Sections 7, Sections 10 &
Sections 11)

Page 10 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

 REQUEST FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION

The Act specifies the manner in which requests may be made by a citizen to the
authority for obtaining the information It also provides for transferring the request to
the other concerned public authority who may hold the information.

- Application is to be submitted in writing or electronically, with prescribed fee,

to Public Information Officer (PIO).
- Information to be provided within 30 days.
- 48 hours where life or liberty is involved.
- 35 days where request is given to Asst. PIO.
- Time taken for calculation and intimation of fees excluded from the time
frame.

- No action on application for 30 days is a deemed refusal.

- If the interests of a third party are involved then time limit will be 40 days
(maximum period + time given to the party to make representation).
- No fee for delayed response. (Section 6 & Sections 7)

 EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE

Certain categories of information have been exempted from disclosure under the Act. These are:
- Where disclosure prejudicially affects 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;

- Information which has been expressly forbidden by any court or tribunal or

the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
- Where disclosure would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the
State Legislature;

Page 11 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
- Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual
property, where disclosure would harm competitive position of a third party,
or available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless larger public
interest so warrants;
- Information received in confidence from a foreign government;
- Information the disclosure of which endangers life or physical safety of any
person or identifies confidential source of information or assistance;
- information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension
or prosecution of offenders;
- 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 which come under the exemptions
specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

Personal information which would cause invasion of the privacy unless larger
public interest justifies it. (Section 8)

 REJECTION OF REQUEST

The Public Information Officer has been empowered to reject a request for
information where an infringement of a copyright subsisting in a person would be
involved. (Section 9).

 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE ALLOWED

Under Section 10 of the Right to Information Act, only that part of the record which does not
contain any information which is exempt from disclosure and which can reasonably
be severed from any part that contains exempt information, may be provided.
Page 12 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

As per Section 10 of the Act if the request for access to information is rejected on
the ground that it is in relation to the information which is exempt from disclosure, in
that event access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain
any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can be
reasonably severed from any part that contains exempt information.

 WHO IS EXCLUDED?

The Act excludes Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified in the
Second Schedule like IB, R&AW, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central
Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau,
Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG,
Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau, Special Branch (CID). Andaman and Nicobar,
the Crime Branch-CID-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Special Branch,
Lakshadweep Police. Agencies specified by the State Governments through a
Notification will also be excluded.

The exclusion, however, is not absolute and these organizations have an

Obligation to provide information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human
rights violations'. Further, information 'relating to allegations of human rights violation
shall be given only with the approval of the Central information Commission within
forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request. (Section 24)

 INFORMATION COMMISSIONS
The Act envisages constitution of Central Information Commission and the State
information-Commissions.

Central Information Commission (CIC): The Central Information Commission is to

Page 13 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
be constituted by the Central Government through a Gazette Notification. The Central
Information Commission consists of the Chief Information Commissioner and Central
Information Commissioners not exceeding 10. These shall be appointed by the
President of India on the recommendations of a committee consisting of PM who is
the Chairman of the Committee; the leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha; and a'
Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister.

The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be

persons of eminence in public life w1th wide knowledge and experience in law,
science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or
administration and governance. CIC/IC shall not be a Member of Parliament or
Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory. He shall not hold any other
office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any
profession. .

The general Superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the

Commission vests in the Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by
the Information Commissioners. Commission shall have its Headquarters in Delhi.
Other offices may be established in other parts of the country with the approval of the
Central Government. Commission will exercise its powers without being subjected to
directions by any other authority (Section 12)

CIC shall be appointed for a term of 5 years from date on which he enters upon
his office or till he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. CIC is not eligible
for reappointment. Salary will be the same as that of the Chief Election
Commissioner. This will not be varied to the disadvantage of the CIC during service (Section 13) .

State Information Commission (SIC): The State Information Commission will be

constituted by the State Government through a Gazette notification. The State
Information Commission consists of one State Chief Information Commissioner
(SCIC) and not more than 10 State Information Commissioners (SIC). These shall be

Page 14 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
appointed by the Governor on the recommendations of a committee consisting of the
Chief Minister who is the Chairman of the committee. Other members include the
Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and one Cabinet Minister
nominated by the Chief Minister.

The qualifications for appointment as SCIC/SIC shall be the same as that for
Central Commissioners. The salary of the State Chief Information Commissioner will
be the same as that of an Election Commissioner. The salary of the State Information
Commissioner will be the same as that of the Chief Secretary of the State government. .

The Commission will exercise its powers without being subjected to any other
authority. The headquarters of the State Information Commission shall beat such
place as the State Government may specify. Other offices may be established in
other parts of the State with the approval of the State Government, (section 15 & section 16)

 POWERS OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

The Central Information Commission/State Information Commission has a duty to receive

complaints from any person-

- who has not been able to submit an information request because a PIO has
not been appointed;
- who has been refused information that was requested;
- who has received no response to his/her information request within the
specified time limits;
- who thinks the fees charged are unreasonable;
- who thinks information given is incomplete or false or misleading; and
- any other matter relating to obtaining information under this law.

If the Commission feels satisfied, an enquiry may be initiated and while initiating
an enquiry the Commission has same powers as vested in a Civil Court.

The Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission during

the inquiry of any complaint under this Act may examine any record which is under
Page 15 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
the control of the public authority, and no such-record may be withheld from it on any grounds.
(Section 18)

 APPELLATE AUTHORITIES

Any person who does not receive a decision within the specified time or is
aggrieved by a decision of the PIO may file an appeal under the Act.

Page 16 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

• First appeal to the officer senior in rank to the PIO in the

concerned Public Authority within 30 days from the expiry
of the prescribed time limit or from the receipt of the
decision (delay may be condoned by the Aprpliste Authority
First Appeal if suffiripnt cause is Shown).

• Second appeal to the Central Information Commission or the

State Information Commission as the case may be, within 90
days of the date on which the decision was given or should
Second have been made by the First Appellate Authority (delay may
Appeal be condoned by the Commission if sufficient cause is shown)

• Third Party appeal against PIO's decision must be filed

within 30 days before first
Appellate Authority; and, within 90 days of the decision on
Third Party the first appeal, before the appropriate Information
Commission which is the second appellate authority
appeal

Burden of proving that denial of information was justified lies with the PIO, First
Appeal shall be disposed of within 30 days from the date of its receipt or within such
extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof,
for reasons to be recorded in writing Time period could be extended by 15 days if
necessary. (Section 19)
Page 17 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

 PENALTIES

Section 20 of the Act imposes stringent penalty on a Public Information Officer (PIO) for failing to
provide information. Every PIO will be liable for fine of Rs. 250 per
day, up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/-, for-

(i) not accepting an application;

(ii) delaying Information release without reasonable cause;
(iii) malafidely denying information;
(iv) knowingly giving incomplete, incorrect, misleading information;
(v) destroying information that has been requested, and
(vi) Obstructing furnishing of information in any manner.

The Information Commission (IC) at the Centre and at the State levels will have
the power to impose this penalty. They can also recommend disciplinary action for
Violation of the law against the PIO for persistently failing to provide information
without any reasonable cause within the specified period.

 JURISDICTION OF COURTS

As per Section 23, lower Courts are barred from entertaining suits or applications
against any order made under this Act.

Role of Central/State Governments:

Section 26 contemplates the Role of Central/State Governments. It authorizes the Central/State

Governments to:

- Develop and organize educational programmes for the public especially

disadvantaged communities on RTI.
- Encourage public authorities to participate in the development and
organization of such programmes.

- Promote timely and effective dissemination of accurate information by the

public authorities.
Page 18 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

- Train officers and develop training materials.

- Compile and disseminate a User Guide for the public in the respective official
language.
- Publish names, designation, postal addresses and contact details of PIOs
and other information such as notices regarding fees to be paid, remedies
available in law if request rejected etc.

 DECISIONS OF COURT

Disclosure of assets of the judges of the Supreme Court

The full bench of the Delhi High Court, in the judgment pronounced on 12.01.2010 upholding the
single bench‘s order, has held that the Chief Justice of India comes within the purview of the Right
to Information Act, and that details of judges‘ assets must be disclosed under the RTI Act. It has
gone to the extent of stating that even income-tax returns and medical records of judges needed to be
disclosed, if they serve public interest.

Two clauses of section 8(1) which are dealt with in this order are: Clause (e) - whether information
is held by the Chief Justice of India in his fiduciary capacity and Clause (j) - whether the information
is personal to be exempt.

The Court held:

The CJI cannot be a fiduciary vis-à-vis the judges of the Supreme Court. The judges of the
Supreme Court hold independent office, and there is no hierarchy in their judicial functions which
places them on a different plane than the CJI. The declarations are not furnished to the CJI in a
private relationship or as a trust, but in discharge of the constitutional obligation to maintain
higher standards and probity of judicial life, and are in the larger public interest. In these
circumstances, it cannot be held that the assets information shared with the CJI by the judges of
the Supreme Court is held by him in a fiduciary capacity, which if directed to be revealed, would
result in breach of such duty.

Accordingly, the court has held that section 8(1)(e) does not cover asset declarations made by

Page 19 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
judges of the Supreme Court and held by the CJI. The CJI does not hold such declarations in a
fiduciary capacity or relationship.

In the present case, the particulars sought by the respondent do not justify or warrant protection
under section 8(1)(j), inasmuch as the only information the applicant sought was whether
the1997 Resolution was complied with. That kind of innocuous information does not
warrant the protection granted by section 8(1)(j). The full bench concurred with the view of the
learned single judge that the contents of asset declarations, pursuant to the 1997 Resolution, are
entitled to be treated as personal information, and

may be accessed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 8(1)(j); and that they are
not otherwise subject to disclosure. Therefore, as regards the contents of the declarations, whenever
applicants approach the authorities under the Act, they would have to satisfy themselves under
section 8(1) (j) that such disclosure is warranted in ―larger public interest‖.

 SOME INTERESTING EXCERPTS FROM THE JUDGMENT:

‗The subject matter in hand involves questions of great importance concerning

balance of rights of individuals and equities against the backdrop of paradigm changes brought
about by the legislature through the Act ushering in an era of transparency, probity and
accountability as also the increasing expectation of the civil society that the judicial organ,
like all other public institutions, will also offer itself for public scrutiny.

‗Information is the currency that every citizen requires to participate in life and the
governance of society. In any democratic polity, greater the access, greater will be the
responsiveness, and greater the restrictions, greater the feeling of powerlessness and
alienation. Information is a basis for knowledge, which provokes thought, and without
thinking process, there is no expression. ―Knowledge‖ said James Madison, ―will forever
govern ignorance and people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves
with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the
means of obtaining it is but a prologue to farce or tragedy or perhaps both‖. The citizens‘ right to
know the facts, the true facts, about the administration of the country is thus one of the
Page 20 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

pillars of a democratic State. And that is why the demand for openness in the
government is increasingly growing in different parts of the world.

‗The source of right to information does not emanate from the Right to Information
Act. It is the right that emerges from the constitutional guarantees under Article 19(1)(a)
as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The Right to Information Act is not
repository of the right to information. Its repository is the constitutional rights guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a). The Act is merely an instrument that lays down statutory procedure in
the exercise of this right. Its overreaching purpose is to facilitate democracy by helping to
ensure that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic
process and to help the governors accountable to the governed. In construing such a statute the
Court ought to give it the widest operation which its language will permit. The Court will also
not readily read words which are not there and the introduction of which will restrict the rights
of citizens for whose benefit the statute is intended.

‗Having posed the question whether judicial ethics exist as such, Justice J.B Thomas
had stated: ―We form a particular group in the community. We comprise a select part of an
honourable profession. We are entrusted, day after day, with the exercise of considerable
power. Its exercise has dramatic effects upon the lives and fortunes of those who come before us.
Citizens cannot be sure that they or their fortunes will not some day depend upon our judgment.
They will not wish such power to be reposed in anyone whose honesty, ability or personal
standards are questionable. It is necessary for the continuity of the system of law as we
know it, that there be standards of conduct, both in and out of court, which are designed to
maintain confidence in those expectations.‖ (Judicial Ethics in Australia, Sydney, Law Book
Company, 1988)

‗The right to information often collides with the right to privacy. The
government stores a lot of information about individuals in its dossiers supplied by
individuals in applications made for obtaining various licenses, permissions including passports,
or through disclosures such as income tax returns or for census data. When an applicant seeks
access to government records containing personal information concerning identifiable
individuals, it is obvious that these two rights are capable of generating conflict. In some cases,
this will involve disclosure of information pertaining to public officials. In others, it will
Page 21 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

involve disclosure of information concerning ordinary citizens. In each instance, the

subject of the information can plausibly raise a privacy protection concern. As one American
writer said: one man‘s freedom of information is another man‘s invasion of privacy.

‗It was Edmund Burke who observed that ―All persons possessing a portion of power
ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust and that they are
to account for their conduct in that trust.‖ Accountability of the Judiciary cannot be seen in
isolation. It must be viewed in the context of a general trend to render governors answerable to the
people in ways that are transparent, accessible and effective. Behind this notion is a concept that
the wielders of power – legislative, executive and judicial – are entrusted to perform their
functions on condition that they account for their stewardship to the people who authorise them
to exercise such power. Well defined and publicly known standards and procedures complement,
rather than diminish, the notion of judicial independence. Democracy expects openness and
openness is concomitant of free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.‘

 Public Cause Research Foundation (PCRF) Report:

PCRF (A Parivartan Initiative) is a public trust started by some RTI activists to encourage
public information officers to think and act positively while dealing with RTI requests.

If the PIO denies information under the RTI Act because he has done something wrong and wants
to hide something, it is understandable. However, a large number of officers are rejecting
information, not because they have something to hide, but because they are culturally oriented to say
―No‖. Often, one comes across officers who would say, ―Why should I give information to him?
Why is he asking for information? What will he do with this information? Who is he to question me?‖
These questions are reflective of a mindset with which our bureaucracy has been working for decades.
They are simply not used to being questioned by the public.

Likewise, RTI Awards seek to comparatively assess the performance of all information
commissioners, so that the best practices could be highlighted. During 2009, PCRF studied 51,128
orders passed by various information commissions during the calendar year 2008 and received
feedback from 8,400 appellants. The performance of each commissioner was studied in great

Page 22 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

detail in term of disposals and pendencies, pro- disclosure attitude, compliance to his orders,
deterrence impact and satisfaction ratio.

The awards have been instituted in three categories: Information Commissioner (to felicitate an
information commissioner who has enabled access to correct and complete information to
maximum appellants and strictly enforced the RTI Act); Public Information Officer (to
felicitate information officers who have provided complete and correct information with maximum
number of RTI applications within the prescribed time limit); and citizens (to felicitate those
citizens who created maximum public impact by using the RTI Act).

The following is the executive summary of this awards exercise:

The Right to Information (RTI) Awards was instituted in the year 2009. One of its objectives
was to comparatively assess the performance of all information commissioners. For this purpose,
the performance of each commissioner was studied in great detail. The study revealed a highly
uneven implementation of the RTI Act across the country. It also highlighted the best practices
which some commissioners may like to emulate.

Methodology: For the purpose of this study, orders passed in 51,128 cases during
2008, by 72 Information Commissioners and 14 combined benches from 25
Information Commissions (barring Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Sikkim), were analyzed. We
found that in 35,930 cases (i.e., 68% cases), orders were passed in favour of disclosure. We
wrote letters to these 35,930 appellants. We also interviewed many of them on phone. We
asked all of them one question: Did they finally get information after approaching the
Information Commission? Finally, we received feedback from 8,400 appellants who shared with
us their experiences with the Commission.

Orders in Favour of Disclosures: Nationally, for every 100 appeals and complaints filed in
Information Commissions, orders in favour of disclosure were passed in 68 cases. Information
was denied in 22% of the cases and 10% of the cases were remanded back. Mr. Anil Joshi of
Chhattisgarh, Mrs. Gangotri Kujur of Jharkhand, and the combined benches of Chhattisgarh
passed 100% of the orders in favour of disclosures. A total of 34 commissioners passed more
Page 23 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
than 90% of the orders in favour of disclosures. Among the states, Assam, Chhattisgarh,
Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab and Karnataka passed more than 90% of the orders in favour of
disclosure. However, 10 commissioners and four states passed less than 50% of the orders in
favour of disclosures, Mr. Naveen Kumar from Maharashtra and Mr. C D Arha from Andhra
Pradesh were at the bottom of the list, with less than 20% of the orders in favour of
disclosures.

Compliance o f O r d e r s : However, a favourable order from the Information

Commissioner does not translate into information. Nationally, just 38% of the pro- disclosure
orders could actually be implemented. In the balance 62% cases, the people did not get
information despite a favourable order. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score.
They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. In addition to Arunachal
Pradesh, Mr. A Venkatratnam of Goa, Mrs. Gangotri Kujur of Jharkhand and the combined
benches of Assam and Nagaland could get more than 70% of their orders implemented.
However, on the lower side, 44 commissioners could get less than 40% of their orders
implemented. Mr. R Dileep Reddy and Mr. C D Arha of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. M R Ranga of
Haryana and Mr. M M Ansari, Mr. M L Sharma and Mr. S N Mishra of CIC could get less
than 20% of their pro-disclosure orders complied with.

Non-compliance: Many commissioners close a case after passing orders in favour of

disclosure— without ensuring compliance thereof. The appellant has to struggle with the
concerned public authority for a few months to get the order implemented. After writing several
letters and making several visits to the public authority, when the order is still not complied
with, he makes a complaint to the commission. Many appellants get tired and do not file
complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course
after a few months, because most of the commissions have huge pendencies, thus causing
hardships to appellants. Mostly, the complaint is disposed of without a hearing and with a letter
to the public authority to comply with the Commission‘s earlier order. The public authority still
does not obey the order. Even if a hearing takes place in the Commission, the case is again closed
with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly,
the order is again not complied with.
Page 24 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Continuing Mandamus: Some states follow the practice of ―continuing mandamus‖.

They do not close a case after passing orders, but post hearings subsequently for
compliance thereof. The case is not closed till the appellant reports satisfaction. These are
Punjab, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Orissa, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat and some
commissioners like Mrs. Gangotri Kujur of Jharkhand, etc. Their compliance rates are better
than other Commissioners and Commissions. However, the problem with most of them is that
barring a few, they have been quite soft with officers. Repeated non-compliance is ignored. As a
result, in some cases, several hearings take place spanning over several months which leads to
attrition and tires out the appellants. When the appellant stops coming, the cases are closed with
the assumption that the appellant might have received all information. Therefore,
continuing mandamus needs to be coupled with strict enforcement.

Arrest W a r r a n t s : Arunachal P r a d e s h i s t h e f i r s t a n d t h e o n l y I n f o r m a t i o n
Commission in the country to have issued bail able arrest warrants under section
18(3) of the RTI Act for non-compliance of the Commission‘s orders. Non- compliance
of their orders is treated as a complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act. Section 18(3) of the
RTI Act empowers the Commission to issue bail able arrest warrants and seek production of
documents. Arunachal Pradesh has used this section quite effectively to get its orders
implemented. Other commissions across the country may also like to invoke their
powers under this section to improve compliance.

Disposals: Mr. Vijay Baburao Borge and Mr. Naveen Kumar have disposed the maximum
number of cases: 383 and 333 respectively, per month. However, they achieved this disposal
by rejecting or remanding back almost 80% of their cases without hearings. Mr. Shailesh
Gandhi stood out by disposing 270 cases per month, in the first few months, and more than 400
cases per month later. He could bring down his pendency from 12 months to less than 2 months.
At the lower end are the north- eastern states, who disposed very few cases, because they get few
appeals. However, there are some commissioners who disposed very few cases despite huge

Page 25 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION
pendencies. Commissioners who disposed less than 10 cases per month, despite huge pendencies,
are Mr. Dileep Reddy of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Arun Kumar Bhattacharya of West Bengal, late
Shri G G Kambli of Goa and Mr. R K Angousana Singh of Manipur.

Imposition of Penalties: The RTI Act mandates that every violation of the Act ―shall‖ be
penalised unless there was a reasonable cause on the part of the PIO. The penalty amount has to
be deducted from the PIO‘s salary. However, just 2.4% of the recorded violations across the
country were penalised. In 74% cases of recorded violations, the Hon‘ble Information
Commissioners did not even question the PIO as to whether there was a ―reasonable cause‖ or
not. The PIOs were questioned in just 26% cases through show cause notices. However, as
many as 65% of these show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. Some
23% notices were dropped because the Commissioners found the explanations and excuses
presented by PIOs in these cases as ―reasonable‖. The combined benches of Orissa imposed
penalties in almost 30% of pro-disclosure cases. As an individual Commissioner, Mr. D N Padhi
of Orissa was at the top, even though he imposed penalties on less than
11% of pro-disclosure cases. There are six Commissioners who imposed penalties in more than
10% of pro-disclosure cases. Nearly 50 Commissioners and 11
Commissions, including the CIC, imposed penalties in less than 2% pro-disclosure cases. What
was alarming was the fact that there were 29 Commissioners and three Commissions who did
not impose even a single penalty despite thousands of recorded violations.

Pendencies: Huge pendencies have become such a severe problem in some states that it takes
more than a year for a case to come up for hearing if it were filed today. Some urgent steps need
to be taken to address mounting pendencies. States with more than a year‘s pendency are
Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, UP and some of the Commissioners at CIC. Strict
imposition of penalties will have a direct bearing on the number of appeals received at the
Commission. When the RTI Act came into effect, officers were scared of violating it because
of its strong penal provisions. But when they saw that the penal provisions were not being
strictly enforced, they started taking RTI lightly. If PIOs do not take RTI Act seriously, the
number of appeals at Commissions will increase exponentially. Therefore, the inflow of
cases to the Commission can be reduced with strict enforcement of penal provisions.

Page 26 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

State of Records: In many Commissions, the state of records is not very healthy.
Many Commissions do not even know for sure how many cases they disposed. At different
times, they gave us different figures of disposals. Many Commissions do not have copies of all
orders. Uttar Pradesh claimed to have passed 22,658 orders during
2008. However, they said that they do not maintain copies of all orders. Tamil Nadu said they
had passed more than 40,000 orders but provided us with only 900 orders.

Missing Records: The trend of PIOs reporting records to be missing or lost seems to be on the
rise. In many cases, this is treated as a legitimate excuse for denial of information. However,
in some parts of the country, when the Commissioners threatened police action, suddenly
these ‗missing‘ records came out, which means that ―missing records‖ was merely an excuse
given by the PIOs to deny information. Mr. Vijay Kuvalekar of Maharashtra has been very
successful in forcing PIOs to trace out records in many cases when he threatened police action.

Arbitrary Commissioner Strength: Commissioners seem to be appointed by state

governments without reference to the pendency of that Commission. On one hand, we came
across states like Arunachal Pradesh that has five Commissioners for

43 appeals, and on the other hand, we have Gujarat that has one Commissioner for a pendency of
almost 5,000 cases. It is important to formulate some guidelines that state how much pendency
a Commissioner should be appointed.

Page 27 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

CASE STUDIES, NEWS & EXAMPLES

 NEWS

Marathi film on RTI : ‘Ek Cup Chya’

One can‘t believe that two hours‘ film in Marathi language with English subtitle on RTI can be
so interesting and absorbing that one enjoys every minute thereof while watching it. It is Ek
Cup Chya, a movie about the Right to Information Act (RTI) as an effective tool against
injustice (the cup of tea, a symbol of hospitality being the metaphor for corruption here).
The storyline is simple : a humble state bus conductor is slapped with a heavy electricity bill.
Humiliated by the bureaucracy, the family embarks on their quest for justice using RTI. ―The
film operates at two levels,‖ informs the producer. ―As a family drama and as pure
information. A lot of research has gone into it with inputs from activists like Aruna Roy,
Arvind Kejriwal etc.‖ I was the chief guest at its screening at SP Jain Institute of Management
on April 28. Hopefully, I shall arrange its screening in due course for all interested in watching
it.
Assets disclosure by MPs :
At least 70 Lok Sabha MPs, including former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda, Rashtriya
Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad and cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu,
have not yet disclosed details of their assets, a Right to Information (RTI) application has
revealed.
The information was obtained in reply to an application filed by RTI activist Subhash
Chandra Agarwal with the Lok Sabha Secretariat, seeking names of the members who have
not disclosed details of their assets and wealth to the speaker. ―No action has so far been taken
against defaulting members the reason for not taking any action against those Lok Sabha
members who have not submitted details of assets and liabilities to the Lok Sabha speaker is
the non-receipt of any complaint from any other member or any citizen of India in this
regard as required under Rule 5(1) of the members of the Lok Sabha (Declaration of Assets
and Liabilities) Rules, 2004.‖
Page 28 of 29
LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Legalising alterations to the buildings:

All is not fine with the fines collected by various civic authorities in Mumbai as an
RTI application filed by activist Aaftab Siddique reveals. The building proposal department in
ward H West has collected over Rs.32.25 crore between 2007 and 2009 as fine to legalise
alterations, after submitting the floor plans and drawings for approval. The health department
has collected fines of Rs. 33.72 lakhs only between 2000 and 2009 while the licence
department has collected barely Rs.3 lakhs in the same period.

Dues to retirees at BMC :

Data procured under RTI from various departments of the Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation (BMC) show that dues to the tune of Rs.30.41 crore is yet to be paid to those who
retired over the past four years. RTI activist, Mr. Milind Mulay, had filed a query under RTI.
When he checked with many officers at the ward level, they were not even aware of the number
of people who have retired from their office in the last four years. He writes : ―My mother,
Vijaya Mulay retired as a nurse from the Marol Maternity Home, but the BMC made her run
around for almost one year and a half and even after that, she did not get her dues. She then
used the RTI Act to get her file moving.‖

Red tape at BMC :

One Mr. Sharad Jadhav has been complaining about the irregularities in awarding a licence to
a café located in one of the by-lanes of Dongri in south Mumbai. Not getting a response,
Jadhav finally wrote to the state Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The bureau forwarded the
complaint to the Municipal Commissioner for verifying the ‗allegation‘ that the civic officials
had turned a Nelson‘s Eye to Sadguru Café‘s illegal construction. When no action was
forthcoming from BMC, Jadhav filed an RTI application to find out about the status of his
complaint. Reply received stated : ―The BMC cannot give information on the subject as it
never received any such letter from the ACB office.‖ After much criticism in the media, the
police officials finally claimed that they had ‗found it‘.

Page 29 of 29