law relating to right to information-final v3

8/7/2019 LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION-final v3

1/29

LAW RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Page 1 of 29

Name of the Institute MET Institute of Management Studies

Batch MFM 2010-2013 1 st 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.

1

2

3

4

5


2/29


Page 2 of 29

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


3/29


Page 3 of 29

INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

POWERS OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

APPELLATE AUTHORITIES

PENALTIES

JURISDICTION OF COURTS

DECISIONS OF COURT

LATEST CASE STUDIES

BIBILIOGRAPHY


4/29


Page 4 of 29

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the world , the right to information is seen by man y as the k ey to

strengthen ing participatory democracy and ensuring more people-centered

development. Nearly 70 countries around the Wor ld have now adoptedcomprehensive Freedom of informa tio n Acts to f acili tate access to records he ld by

government bodies and ano ther 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 E x press Newspapers , the Supreme Court read into Article 21

the right to know . The Supreme Court he ld that right to know is a necessary

ingredient 'Of parti cipatory democracy . In view of transnat ional developments when

distances are shrinking, international communit ies are coming together for co operation in v arious

sphe res and th ey are movi ng towards global p erspective In

variou s f ields Incl uding Hu man Rights, the e xpression "liberty " must rec eive an

expanded m eaning. The expression cannot be l imited to mere abs ence of b odi lyrestraint. It is wide enough to e xpand to full range of r ights inc luding right t o hold a

particular opini on and right to su stain an d nurture that opinion. For sustaining and

nurturing th at opinion it becomes necessar y to receiv e inform ation. Article 21 co nfers

on a ll persons a right to k now which inclu de a right to rec eive inform ation .

It ma y be p ointed out that th e right to impart a nd receiv e inf ormat ion is a species

of the right to f reedom o f speech and e xpression . Article 19(1) (a) of our Constitution

guarantees to all cit izens 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

reasona ble rest rictions o n the e xercise of the rights conferred by Article 19 (1) (a) of

the constitut ion i n the int erest of sovereignty and integrity of Ind ia, the security of the

State, friendl y relations with foreign States , public order , decency , morality , contempt

of court , defa mation and incitement of offence .


5/29


Page 5 of 29

Thus, a citizen has a r ight to receive information and that right is der ived from the

concept of freedom of s peech and express ion comprised in Article 19(1) (a ). The

State is not only under an Obligation to respect the Fundamental Rights of the

cit izens, but i t is equally unde r an obligation to ensu re conditions under whic h theselights can mea ningfully and effectively be enjoyed by one and all.

Right to f reedom of speech and express ion in Art .19 (1 )(a) carr ies w ith it the r ight

to propagate an d c ircul ate one 's views and opinions subje ct to reasonable restrictions

as mentioned above . The prerequis ite for enjoying th is right is knowledge and

inf ormation . 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 eff ective framework for effec tuat ing the right to

inf ormation recognized under Artic le 19 of the Cons titution . It

may be po inted out that the R icJht to Information Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on

May 11 , 2005 a nd by the Rajya Sabha on May 12 , 2005 and received the assent of

the President on June 15 , 2005. The Act considered as watershed leg islation, is th e

most significant mi lestone in the history of Right to Info rmation movement in India

allowing transparency ar id autonomy and access to accountability .

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT

The Right to Information Act extends to the who le of India e xcept 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 t he Act.

The P ublic Information Officers/Assistant Public Information Officer s w ill be

responsib le to dea l w ith the requests for information and also to ass ist

persons s eeking informa tion.


6/29


Page 6 of 29

Fee wil l be p ayable by t he applicant d ependin g on th e nature of Inf ormation

sought.

Certain categories of inf ormation have been exe mpted from di sclosu re und er

Section 8 and 9 of the Ac t.

Intelli gen ce and security agencies specified in Schedule II t o the A ct h ::1 VP

been ex empt ed f rom the amb it of the Act, sub ject to certain conditi ons.

OBJECTIVE

As stated above , the Right to Information Act confers on all c itizens a right to informati on. The Act

provides for setting out the p ractic al regime of right to information for citize ns to

secure access to information held by public authoritie s to promote transpar ency and

accountability in th e working of ev ery public authority .

DEFINITIONS

The meaning of im portant terms has been incorp orated under secti on 2 o f the

Right to Information Act . These have bee n d iscussed herein below :

Public authority " means any authority or body or institution of self government e stabli shed or

constituted

- By or under t he Constitu tion:

- By any other l aw m ade by Parliament ;

- By and other law made by State Legislature ;

- By notification issued or order made by the appropri ate Govt. [Section 2 (h)]

Record " includes -

- any docume nt, manu script and file;- any m icrofilm , microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;

- any reproduction of image or images embo died in such microfi lm (wh ether

enlarged or not) : and

- any other material produced by a computer or any other device [Section 2 (I)]


7/29


Page 7 of 29

."Informat ion " 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 mat erial held in any electronic

form, [Section 2(f)]

"Right to information " means the right to information accessible under this Act

whi ch is held by or under the control of any public autho rity and includes the right to -

- taking notes , extracts, or certified copies of docume nts 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 elect ronic mode or through printouts where such in f orma tionis stored in a computer or in any other device ; [Sect ion 2( j ) ]

"Third party" mean s a person other than the c itizen makin g a request for

informati on and i ncludes a public auth ority. [Section 2 (n)]

OBLIGATIONS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY

Every pu blic author ity u nder the Act has been entruste d with a duty to m aintain

reco rds a nd pub lish m anuals, r ules , regu lations, instructions, etc . in its posse ssion as

prescr ibed unde r the Act. [Se ction 4( 1 )(a))

As per Se ction 4 (1 )(b), ever y public authority has to pub lish wit hin one hun dred

and twenty days of the ena ctment of th is Act :

- the particulars of its o rgan ization , functions and duties ;

- the pow ers and dut ies of its officers and employees ;

- the procedure foll owed in its dec ision making process , including channels of

supe rvisi on and accountab ility ;

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


8/29


Page 8 of 29

- the rules, regulati ons, instruct ions, manuals and reco rds used by its

employees for dis charging its functions ;

- a state ment of t he c ategor ies of the documents held by it or under its c ontrol ;

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

representation by the members of the public , in relation to the formul ation of policy or implementat ion 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 di rectly of its officers and employees ;

- the month ly remuneration received by each of its off icers and employees ,

including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;

- the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicat ing the particulars of all

plans , proposed e xpenditures and reports on disbursements made ;

- the manner of execution of subsidy programmes , including the amoun ts

allocated and the details and beneficiaries of such programmes ;

- particula rs of recip ients of concessions , permits or authorizations granted byit;

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

form ;

- the particulars of facilities availab le to citizens for obtain ing informat ion,

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

Off icers .

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

publ ications every year


9/29


Page 9 of 29

DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS ( PIO )

Ever y public a uthority has to-

- Designate in al l adm inistrative units or off ices Central or State Pub lic

Information Off icers to provide inform ation to persons who h ave m ade a

request for t he informat ion.- Desig nate at ea ch sub -divisiona l level or sub-dist rict level C entral Assistant

or St ate Assist ant Pu blic Information Offic ers t o recei ve the app lications f or

information or appeals for forwarding the same to the C entral or Stat e Publi c

Information Of ficers .

- No reason to be g iven b y the person ma k ing request f or informa tion e xcept

those that may be necessary for contacting h im. (Section 5)

DUTIES OF A PUBLIC IFORAMTION OFFICER ( PIO )

PIO sha ll deal with r equests from persons seek ing information and whe re the

request cannot be made in writing, to rende r reas onable assistance to the person to

reduce the same in wr iting. If the information requested for is held by or its subject

matte r-is closely connected with the funct ion 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 off icer for the proper d ischarge o f

his/her dut ies. PIO , on rece ipt 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 re ject the request for any of the

reasons specif ied in S .8 or S .9.

Where the informa tion requested for concerns the life or liberty of a person , the

same s hall be prov ided with in forty-eight hours of the rece ipt of the request. If the PIO f alls to give

decision on th e request within the pe riod specified, he shall be deeme d to

have ref used the request.


10/29


Page 10 of 29

Where a request has been rej ected , the PIO shall communicate to the r equester -

(i) the reaso ns fo r su ch re jection,

(ii) the p eriod within which an appe al against su ch

re jection m ay be preferred, and

(iii) the particulars of the Appe llate Auth ority.

PIO shall provide Inf ormat ion in the form in which it is sought unles s it wou ld

disprop ortio nately dive rt the resources of the P ublic Authority or would be detriment al

to the safe ty or preser vation of the record i n question.

If allowing particular a ccess, the PIO shall g ive a notice to the appl icant , info r min g:

- that on ly par t of the record reques ted, after severance of the record

conta ining info rmation which is exempt from disclosure , is being provided ;

- the reasons fo r the decision , including any find ings on any mater ial question

of fact, referrin g to the mater ial on which those find ings were based;

- the name an d designat ion of the person giv ing the decis ion;

- the det ails of the fees c alcu lated by h im or her and the amount of fee which

the applic ant is required to depos it; and

- his or her rights with respect to review of the dec ision r egarding non-

disclosure of part o f the i nf ormation , the amount of fee charged o r the f orm of

access provided.

If infor mation sou ght has been supplied by third party or is treated as confidential

by that th ird party , the PIO shall give written notice to the third party w ithin 5 days

from the rece ipt of th e req uest.

Third par ty must be given a chance to make a representation befo re the PIO

within 10 days . f rom th e date of rece ipt of such notice . (Sections 5 , Sections 7 , Sections 10 &

Sections 11)


11/29


Page 11 of 29

REQUEST FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION

The Act specif ies the manner in wh ich requests may be made by a c itizen to the

author ity for obta ining the information It also provides for transferring the requ est to

the other concerned publ ic authority wh o may hold the information .

- Appl ication is to be subm itted in writing or electron ical ly, w ith presc ribed fee,

to Pub lic Infor mat ion Off icer ( PIO ).

- Informat ion to be provided w ithin 30 days.

- 48 hours wher e life or liberty is involved .

- 35 days where request is g iven to Asst. PIO .

- Time taken fo r calculation and intimation of fees excluded from the time

frame .

- No action on app licat ion for 30 days is a deemed refusal.

- If the interests of a third party are involved then time lim it will be 40 da ys

(maximum period + time given to the party to make represent ation).

- No fee for delayed response . (Section 6 & Sections 7)

EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE

Certain categorie s of i n formation have been e xempted from d i s cl o sure under th e Act. These are :

- Where disclo sure prejudic ially affects the sovereignty and integrity of India ,

the security , strategic , scientific or economic interests of the State, relation

with fore ign St ate or lead to inc itement of an offence ;

- Info rmation which has been expressly forbidden by any court or tribun al or

the disclosur e of which may constitute contempt of court ;

- Where discl osure would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the

State Leg islature;


12/29


Page 12 of 29

- Information including commercial confidence , trade secrets or inte llectual

property, whe re disclosure would harm competitive position of a third party,

or availab le to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless larger publ ic

interest so w arrants ;

- Information r eceived in conf idence from a foreig n government ;

- Information the d isclosure of which endangers life or physical saf ety of any

person or identifies conf idential source of information or assistanc e;

- information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension

or prosecut ion of of fenders;

- Cabine t pap ers includ ing reco rds of deliberat ions of the Council of M inisters,

Secretar ies and o ther o ffic ers

Provided that the dec isio ns of Counci l of M inisters, the reaso ns thereo f , andthe m aterial on t he bas is of w hich the d ecisio ns were ta ken shall b e made

publi c af ter the d ecision has been ta ken, and th e mat ter is comple te, or over

Prov ided f urther that those matters wh ich come under the exe mpt ions

spec ified in this section shall not be d isclosed ;

Personal in f ormat ion wh ich would cause invasion o f the pr ivacy unless larger

public interest justi f ies it. (Section 8)

REJECTION OF REQUEST

The Public Information Officer has been empowered to reject a request f or

informat ion where an infringement of a copyright subsist ing in a person would be

involved . (Sect ion 9 ).

PARTIAL DISCLOSURE ALLOWED

Under Sect ion 10 of the Right to Information Act , only that part of the record which does not

contain any information which is e xempt from disclosure and which can reasonably

be severed from any part that contains e xempt information, may be provided .


13/29


Page 13 of 29

As per Sect ion 10 of the Act if the request for access to information is rejected on

the ground that it is in relat ion to the information wh ich is exempt from disclosure , in

that event access may be prov ided to that part of the record wh ich does not cont ain

any information wh ich is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which ca n be

reasonably seve red from any par t that contains e xempt information .

WHO IS EXCLUDED?

The Act e xcludes Centra l Intelligence and Secur ity agenc ies specif ied in the

Second Schedule like IB , R&AW , Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , Central

Econom ic Intell igence Bureau, D irectorate of Enforcement, Narcot ics Control Bureau,

Av iation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP , CISF , NSG, Assam R ifles, Spec ial Service Bureau, Special Branch (CID). Andaman and Nicobar ,

the Crime Branch-CID -CB, Dadra and Nagar Havel i and Special Branch ,

Lakshadweep Pol ice. Agenc ies specified by the State Governments through a

Notificat ion will also be e xcluded.

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

Obligat ion to provide info rmation pertaining to allegations of corruption and humanrights violations '. Further , information 'relating to allegat ions 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 rece ipt of request. (Section 24)

INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

The Act envisages constitution of Central Information Commission and the State

inf orma tion-Comm issions.

Ce ntr a l Inf o r m ati on Commi s si o n ( C IC ): The Central Information Commission is to


14/29


Page 14 of 29

be consti tuted by the C entral Gove rnmen t through a Gaze tte Notification . The Ce ntral

Information C ommission c ons ists o f th e C hief Inf ormation Commiss ioner and Central

Inf ormat ion Commiss ione rs not exceeding 10 . The se shall be ap pointed by the

Pres ident of India on the recomm endat ions of a commi ttee con sisting of PM who i s

the Chairman of the C ommittee ; the leader of Opposition in th e Lok S abha; and a '

Union C abinet Minister t o be n ominated by t he P rime M inist er.

The Chief Inf ormati on Commi ssioner and Information C ommissione rs sh all be

persons of em inence in p ublic lif e w 1th w ide k nowledge and e xperience in law ,

science and technology , social s ervice , management , journalism , mass med ia or

administration and gov ernance. CIC/IC sha ll not be a Member of Parliament or

Member of the Legisla ture o f any State or Union Te rritory . He shall not ho ld any o ther

office of profit o r connected w ith any political part y or carrying on any bus iness or pursu ing any

prof ession . .

The general Super intendence , direction and m anagement of the affa irs of the

Commiss ion vests in the Ch ief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by

the Informatio n Comm issioners . Comm ission sha ll have its Headquarters in Delh i.

Other offices may be establ ished in other part s of the country w ith the approval of the

Cent ral Gover nment. Com mission wil l exercise it s powers witho ut being su bjected to

directions by any other authority (Section 12)

CIC shal l be a ppointed f or a term of 5 years f rom date on whi ch he enter s upon

his of fice or t ill he a ttains the a ge of 65 years , whiche ver is earli er. CIC is n ot elig ible

f or reappointment. Sala ry wi ll be the same as that of the Chi ef El ection

Comm issioner. This wil l not be varied to the disadvantage of the C IC dur ing serv ice (Secti on 13) .

S t a te I n f or m at i o n C om miss i on ( SIC) : The State Informat ion Co mmiss ion w ill be

constituted by the State Government throug h a Gazette notif icat ion. The State

Information C ommission consists of o ne State Chief Information Commissioner

(SCIC) and no t mo re t han 10 Sta te Informa tion Commissioners (SIC) . These sha ll be


15/29


Page 15 of 29

appointed by the Governor on the recommendations of a committee consisting of the

Chief Min ister wh o is the Chairman of the committee . Other memb ers include the

Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and one Cabinet Minister

nominated by the Chief Min ister.

The qua lif ications for appointment as SCIC/S IC shall be the same as that f orCentral Commissioners . The salary of the State Chief Information Commissioner w ill

be the same as that of an Election Comm issioner. The sa lary of the State Informat ion

Commiss ioner 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 othe r

authority . The headquarters of the State Information Commission shall beat such

place as the State Government may spec ify. Other off ices 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 Informat i on Commiss i on/State Information Commission has a duty to receive

complaints from any person -

- who has not been able to submit an information request bec ause a PIO has

not been app ointed ;

- who has been ref use d inf ormati on that was requested;

- who has rece ived no resp onse to his/her infor mation request within the

specified ti me limits;

- who thi nks the fees charged are unreasonable ;

- who thi nks inf ormation g iven is incomplete or false or mis leading ; and

- any other matter relat ing to obtaining information under this law .

If the Commission feels satisfied, an enquiry may be initiated and wh ile in itiating

an enqu iry the Com mission has same powers as vested in a Civ il Court.

The Central In f ormation Commiss ion or the State Information Commission during

the inquiry of any complaint under this Act may examine any record which is und er


16/29


Page 16 of 29

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.


17/29


Page 17 of 29

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 tota l of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof ,

for reasons to be recorded in writing Time period could be e xtended by 15 days if

necessary . (Section 19)

First Appeal

First appeal to the officer senior in rank to the PIO in theconcerned Public Authority within 30 days from the expiryof the prescribed time limit or from the receipt of thedecision (delay may be condoned by the Aprpliste Authority

if suffiripnt cause is Shown).

Second Appeal

Second appeal to the Central Information Commission or theState Information Commission as the case may be, within 90days of the date on which the decision was given or shouldhave been made by the First Appellate Authority (delay maybe condoned by the Commission if sufficient cause is shown)

Third Party appeal

Third Party appeal against PIO 's decision must be filedwithin 30 days before first

Appellate Authority; and, within 90 days of the decision onthe first appeal, before the appropriate InformationCommission which is the second appellate authority


18/29


Page 18 of 29

PE NA LTIES

Section 20 of the Act imposes stringent penalty on a Public Information Officer ( PIO ) for failing to

prov ide 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) dela ying Info rma tion release without reasonable cause ;

(iii) malaf idely denying informat ion;

(iv) kno wingly giving incom plete, incorrect, mislead ing inf ormation;

(v) destroying inf ormation that has been reques ted, and

(vi) Obstructing furnishing of inform ation in any man ner.

The Inf o rm a tio n C om mis si o n (IC) at the Centre and at the State levels w ill ha ve

the p ower to impose this penalty. They ca n also r e co mmend di scipl inary action f or

Violation of the law a gainst the PIO for pers isten tly fa iling to provide inf orma tion

without any reasona ble c ause within the sp ecified period.

JURISDICTION OF COURTS

As per Section 23 , lower Cou rts are barred from entertain ing s uits or app lications

aga inst any order made u nder this Act .

R ole of Central/State G overnments:

Section 26 co ntemplate s the Role o f Central / State Government s. It auth orizes the Ce ntral/ State

Gover nmen ts to:

- Dev elop and o rgani ze educat ional progr ammes for t he p ublic especiall ydisadvantaged c ommunit ies o n RTI .

- Encourag e p ublic authorities to participate in the developme nt and

organizat ion of such programme s.

- Promote t imely and effective dissemination of accurate informati on by the

pub lic autho rities.


19/29


Page 19 of 29

- Tra in offic ers an d deve lop tra ining mate rials.

- Comp ile and dissemi nate a User Guid e for the publ ic in the re spect ive officia l

langua ge.

- Pub lish nam es, designa tion, posta l addresses an d contact details of P IOs

and other infor mation such as notices regard ing f ees to be p aid, remed ies

avai lable 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 benchs 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--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


20/29


Page 20 of 29

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 lar ger 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.

Infor mation 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 withoutthinking 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 bo th. The citizen s right to

know the facts, the true facts, about the administration of the country is thus one of the


21/29


Page 21 of 29

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 alsonot 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


22/29


Page 22 of 29

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 m ans f reedom of information is another m ans invasion of privacy.

It was Edmund Burke who observed that Allpersons 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


23/29


Page 23 of 29

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 objectiveswas 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


24/29


Page 24 of 29

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 of Orders: 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 ArunachalPradesh, 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 Comm issions 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.


25/29


Page 25 of 29

Continuing Mandamus: Some states follow the practice of continuing manda mus.

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 Jha rkhand, 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 Warrants: Arunachal Pra des h is the f i rs t and the onl y Inf orm ati on

Commission in the country to have issued bail able arrest warrants under section

18(3) of the RTI Act for non-compliance of the Commissions 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


26/29


Page 26 of 29

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 shallbe

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 Honbl e 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 excusespresented 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 years 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 a t Commissions wi ll increase exponentia lly. Therefore, the inflow of

cases to the Commission can be reduced with strict enforcement of penal provisions.


27/29


Page 27 of 29

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 during2008. 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 re porting 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.


28/29


Page 28 of 29

CASE STUDIES, NEWS & EXAMPLES

NEWS

Marathi film on RTI : Ek Cup Chya

One cant 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. Noaction 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.


29/29


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 : Mymother,

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 m oving.

Red tape at BMC :

One Mr. Sharad Jadhav has been complaining about the irregularities in awarding a licence to

a caf 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 Nelsons Eye to Sadguru Cafs 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 f ound it .

law relating to right to information-final v3

Documents