RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE

TO ENSURE GOOD GOVERNANCE IN INDIA

Caesar Roy*
_____________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT
The free flow of information is must for a democratic society as it helps the society to
grow and to retain a continuous debate and discussion among the people. No
democratic government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of
accountability that is the people should have information about the functioning of the
government. Gone are the days when public dealings were kept in strict secret, a
practice which often led to corruption, misuse and abuse of statutory and
administrative power. Freedom of information brings openness in the administration
which helps to promote transparency in state affairs, keep government more
accountable and ultimately reduce corruption. Disclosure of information in regard to
the functioning of the government must be the rule and secrecy an exception. The
Right to Information Act, 2005 was passed for making the government transparent
and more accountable; the effective use of it would, in a long run, curb corruption. In
___________________________________________________________________________
*LL.M, PG Diploma in Criminology & Forensic Science.
Department of Law, The University of Burdwan. West Bengal.

Research Scholar,

Life Member, National Campaign for Peoples Right to Information (NCPRI)

Assistant Professor in law, Midnapore Law College, Midnapore, West Bengal. PIN
721102. Mobile No. 9434320999. Email caesarroy123@gmail.com

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2343109

a responsible Government like ours where all the agents of the public must be
responsible for their conduct, there could be no secrets. There has been no vehicle
available for individual citizens to impact the governance structure. In a system
reeking with corruption and becoming increasingly insensitive to the problems of the
disadvantaged Citizenry, the Right to Information has shown promise of empowering
Citizens to get accountability and act as an enforcer of good governance.

INTRODUCTION
India is a democratic republic state. Here the Government is of the people, by the
people and for the people. Therefore the people of our country have the right to know
about state affairs. Freedom of information brings openness in the administration
which helps to promote transparency in state affairs, keep government more
accountable and ultimately reduce corruption. The free flow of information is must
for democratic society as it helps the society to grow and to retain a continuous debate
and discussion among the people. But the access to information held by a public
authority was possible until 2005. Before that the common people did not have any
legal right to know about the public policies and expenditures. It was quite ironical
that people who voted the persons responsible for policy formation to power and
contributed towards the financing of huge costs of public activities were denied access
to the relevant information. The concept of good governance directly emanates from
the right to know which seems to implicit in the right to free speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).1 All modern governments believe that openness is
one of the principles of good governance. It serves three purposes, first, evaluation of
_____________________________________________________________________
1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India; AIR 1982 SC 149

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2343109

the government by the citizens; second, their participation in the decision making; and
third, it casts a duty on the electorate to keep an eye on the deeds of its representatives
and not sit idle after exercising their franchise after five years. The term right to
information are often used interchangeably and have long been regarded as a
fundamental human right. In its very first session in 1946, the UN General Assembly
adopted Resolution 59 (1), stating. Freedom of information is a fundamental human
right and... the touch-stone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is
consecrated.

BACKGROUND FOR PASSING RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

The notion of right to information gained momentum when Article 19 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 ensuring Everyone has
the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers. Also Article 19(2) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political rights 1966 says that Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of expression, the freedom to seek and impart information and ideas of all
kind, regardless of frontiers.
It all began in 1990 when the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a collective
of farmers and labourers, was formed in Devdungri, a remote rural area of Rajasthan.
Members of MKSS were working for a state employment generation scheme, yet
were being paid considerably less than the guaranteed minimum wage. This
persuaded them to demand their legal rights. In reaction they got an answer that the
official documents are not consonant with the necessary work that ought to be done

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2343109

by them. Such official documents were wrapped with the bureaucratic secrecy
unavailable even to the persons, to which they were related. However, some clues by
the compassionate officer indicated towards enormous irregularities. Tackling these
discrepancies required some unique medium to sensitize the people directly and easily
for this purpose, MKSS adopted the means of placing the disclosed information
(whatever could be bring out) in the public domain through live wire village based
public hearing colloquially referred as jan sunwais. This movement raised famous
slogans like hamara paisa, hamara hisaab (our money, our accounts) and hum
janenge, hum jiyenge (we will know, we will live).
Overall it can be safely asserted that transparency and accountability were the two
essential demands of the movement, which they wanted to be installed in the system
as whole. Dawn of the RTI ushered with this movement, which made people realize
that secrecy enabled corrupt officials to draw off minimum wages and other
entitlements of the poor. A movement demanding the RTI was thus born and its first
champions were the disempowered rural workers in the remote rural area of
Rajasthan. Hence a need was being felt that a separate Act should be framed giving
the citizens a right to information about the workings, activities and decisions of the
Government both at the centre and the state level. A law was required to make
information available when asked for.
The formal recognition of a legal RTI in India occurred more than two decades before
legislation was finally enacted, when the Supreme Court of India ruled in State of
U.P. v. Raj Narain2 that the right to information is implicit in the right to freedom of
speech and expression explicitly guaranteed in Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
_____________________________________________________________________
2. AIR 1975 SC 865

Justice K.K. Mathew observed, In a government of responsibility like ours, where all
the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few
secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything
that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know
the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. In Bennett Coleman &
Co. v. Union of India3, the right to information was held to be included within the
right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1)(a). In S.P. Gupta
v. Union of India4, the right of the people to know about every public act, and the
details of every public transaction undertaken by public functionaries was described.
In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 5, the Supreme Court observed
that Right of information is a facet of the freedom of speech and expression as
contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Also in Secretary, ministry
of information & broadcasting v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal 6, the SC held that the
airwaves were a public property and its distribution among the government media and
the private channels should be done on equitable basis as the freedom of speech
included the right to impart and receive information from electronic media.
The idea of a right to information was thus, evolved by the judiciary by reading the
same into the fundamental right of the citizens freedom of speech and expression.
The reactions and response are that, several states of India started enacting their own
laws of Right to Information. The state of Tamil Nadu was the first state to introduce
its Right to Information Act in the year 1996. Goa is the second state (1997), then
_____________________________________________________________________
3. AIR 1973 SC 106
4. AIR 1982 SC 149
5. AIR 1997 SC 568
6. AIR 1995 SC 1236

Rajasthan (2000), Karnataka (2000), Maharashtra (2000), Delhi (2001), Assam

(2001), Madhya Pradesh (2002) and Jammu and Kashmir (2004). The Delhi RTI Act
is still in force. Jammu & Kashmir, has its own Right to Information Act of 2009, the
successor to the repealed Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2004 and its
2008 amendment.
In the national level Government of India passed the Freedom of Information Act,
2002. This Act, however, was found to be falling short of the expectations of the
public and hence The National Advisory Committee (NAC) suggested certain
important changes to be incorporated in the existing Act to ensure smoother and
greater access to information. Having examined the suggestions made by the NAC
and others, the Government decided to make number of changes in the law and Right
to Information Act, 2005 was enacted and the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 was
repealed. The Right to Information Act, 2005 fully came into force since 12 th October,
2005.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Sweden is the first country in the world to pass this Act, as long back as 1976. Since
then, nearly 57 countries have followed Sweden. In recent years, many
Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have passed laws
providing for the right of access to administrative information. USA, France and
Scandinavian countries have also passed similar laws. US Freedom of Information
Act ensures openness in administration by enabling the public to demand information
about issues as varied as deteriorating civic amenities, assets of senators and
utilisation of public funds.

It is not only the developed countries that have enacted freedom of information
legislation, similar trends are seen in the developing countries as well. The new South
Africa Constitution specifically provides the Right to Information in its Bill of
Rights--thus giving it an explicit constitutional status. Malaysia operates an on-line
data base system known as Civil Services Link, through which a person can access
information regarding functioning of public administration. There is thus a global
sweep of change towards openness and transparency.
In USA, the first amendment to the Constitution provided for the freedom of speech
and expression. The country had already passed the Freedom of Information Reform
Act 1986, which seeks to amend and extend the provisions of previous legislation on
the same subject. But this right is not absolute. In Australia, the Freedom of
Information Act was enacted in December 1982. It gave citizens more access to the
Federal Governments documents. With this, manuals used for making decisions were
also made available.

CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT OF THE RTI ACT

This Right to Information (RTI) is basically a derivative of the Article 19 of the

Constitution which deals with protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech
etc. it says, "All the citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression."
The idea is that if we do not have information on how our Government and public
institutions function, we cannot express any informed opinion on it. To know this
right in a better way, we should try to understand the freedom of press. The freedom
of the press is an essential element for a democracy to function. The justification is
that the democracy revolves round the basic idea of citizens being at the centre of

governance - rule of the people. We need to define the importance of the concept of
freedom of the press from this fundamental premise. It is obvious that the main reason
for a free press is to ensure that citizens are informed. If this is one of the main
reasons for the primacy given to the freedom of the press, it clearly flows from this
that the citizens' right to know is paramount. Also, since the government is run on
behalf of the people, they are the owners who have a right to be informed directly.
Therefore, the Right to Information becomes a constitutional right, being an aspect of
the right to free speech and expression which includes the right to receive and collect
information. This will also help the citizens perform their fundamental duties as set
out in Article 51A of the Constitution. A fully informed citizen will certainly be better
equipped for the performance of these duties. Thus, access to information would assist
citizens in fulfilling these obligations.
Alongside Article 19(1) (a), the other articles which secures right to information
under Indian constitution are Articles 311(2) and 22(1). Article 311(2) provides for a
government servant to make out why he is being dismissed or removed or being
demoted and representation can be made against the order. On the other hand Article
22(1) a person can know the grounds for his detention. In Essar Oil Ltd v. Halar
Utkarsha Samiti7, the SC held that right to information emerges from right to personal
liberty guaranteed by article 21 of constitution. In Union of India v. Association for
Democratic Reforms8, the apex court held that the right of the voters to know about
the antecedents including criminal past of the candidate contesting elections for MPs
or MLAs is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. Voters
_____________________________________________________________________
7. AIR 2004 SC 1834
8. AIR 2002 SC 2114

speak or express by casting votes and for this purpose, information about the
candidates to be selected must be made public.
All of these provisions had been decided by the Supreme Court in various cases.
Some of them are already mentioned earlier. Recently in Peoples Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India9, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India
constituted by Justice S.B.Sinha and Justice B.M.Khare held that Right to
Information is a facet of the freedom of speech and expression as contained in
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Right to Information, thus, indisputably
is a Fundamental Right.

FROM FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO STATUTORY RIGHT

The Act of Right to Information, however, is a very different Act. As far as all the
other laws are concerned, the executor of the law is government; people just abide by
these laws. But as far as the law of Right to Information is concerned it is just the
opposite: Here, the public is the executor and the government has just to act; i.e. the
roles of the public and the government are just the opposite. It is, probably, this
situation which was a great hurdle in the execution of the law.
Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Central Information Commission and State
Information Commission have been set up. These are the supreme appellate
authorities to exercise the power conferred on and to perform the functions assigned
to under this Act. In all administrative units of the Government there shall be Central
_____________________________________________________________________
9. AIR 2004 SC 1442

Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be for
providing information to the person requesting under the Act.
A person who desires to obtain information shall make a request in writing or through
electronic means of communication to the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer of the concerned public authority along with prescribed
fees. The Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer
shall within 30 days of the receipt of such request either provide information to the
person or reject the request. If he fails to give any decision it will be presumed that he
has refused the request.
A person who is not satisfied with the information provided by the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer as the case may be or a
person who is denied to have any information or whose request is rejected without
assigning any reason may prefer an appeal to the officer who is senior in rank to the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. A second
appeal may be preferred to the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission established under the Act. Decision of the Commission is
final and binding. Thus a hierarchy has been set up within the public authority and the
power of court has been curtailed. Now the court is not entitled to entertain any suit,
application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no
such order shall be called in question in court. Thus jurisdiction of the court cannot be
invoked because there exists a statutory bar under Section 23 of the Act. Now Right to
Information has become a statutory right and any person aggrieved with the decision
of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer has
statutory remedy under the Act. He does not have to knock the door of the court.

The scope of Fundamental Right is wider than any statutory right. The Fundamental
Right of Chapter III of the Constitution is the basic feature which cannot be altered or
taken way by the legislature or executive. But statutory right does not stand in such a
solemn position and statutory right is liable to be changed. The Parliament or the State
Legislative Assembly may anytime alter such right. Right to Information as a part of
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) is our
Fundamental Right. As per the Constitution if there is violation of Fundamental Right
by the state, the aggrieved person may go to the Supreme Court under Article 32 or to
the High Court under Article 226 directly. But after passing of the Right to
Information ct, 2005, this Fundamental Right becomes only a statutory right.

NEED FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT STATUS

The scope of Fundamental Right is wider than any statutory right. The Fundamental
Right of Chapter III of the Constitution is the basic feature which cannot be altered or
taken way by the legislature or executive. But statutory right does not stand in such a
solemn position and statutory right is liable to be changed. The Parliament or the State
Legislative Assembly may anytime alter such right. But after passing of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, the dignity of right to know has been much reduced.
At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the Supreme Court, in State of U.P. v. Raj
Narain10, recognized the right to know as a right inherent in Fundamental Right to
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. Following this, a plethora of cases the right to information was
_____________________________________________________________________
10. AIR 1975 SC 865

recognized as a right implicit in the article 19(1)(a) and in article 21. In Peoples
Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India11, the Supreme Court observed that in
Right of information is a facet of the freedom of speech and expression as contained
in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Right of information, thus,
indisputably is a fundamental right.
However, every time the Constitution is amended, the basic structure test laid down
in Keshavanada Bharti12 Case has to be satisfied. The test provides that a
constitutional amendment should not be in derogation of the basic features of the
Constitution like judicial review, democracy or Rule of Law. While including the
right to information is as a fundamental right, if at all there is any effect on any of the
basic structure it would be in the nature of strengthening the democracy and making it
progressive, as envisaged by the makers of our Constitution. The nature of problems,
the Act has faced till date ranges from administrative interpretation against the grant
of requested information, to ordinary and easy amendment to reduce the scope of the
Act. The above problems would not have arisen had the right been a fundamental
right under the Constitution.

WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE

The concept of governance is as old as human civilization. What is Governance? It

simply means the process of decision making and the process by which decisions are
implemented. The majority of the member States of the comity of nations today
_____________________________________________________________________
11. AIR 1997 SC 568
12. Keshavananda Bharat v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

are founded on the principle of Welfare State, run with full participation of their
respective inhabitants, striving to achieve the common good and in the process
affording optimum opportunity and involvement for growth of the individual so as to
subserve the societal interests. This has led to evolution of Good Governance.
Good governance means the efficient and effective administration in a democratic
framework. It involves high level organizational efficiency and effectiveness
corresponding in a responsive way in order to attain the predetermined desirable goals
of society. Good governance is essentially dovetailing policies which the respective
states must ensure while formulating their policies, regulations and laws. Good
governance policies and practices necessarily vary according to the particular
circumstances and needs of different societies. Simultaneously the responsibility for
determining and implementing such practices, based on transparency and
accountability.
According to Oxford Dictionary13 good governance means Act or manner of
governing and the office or function of governing while govern is inter alia
defined as rule or control (a state, subject etc.) with authority conduct the policy and
affaires of (an organization etc.), which means governance refers to as process or the
act or function of exercising (usually legitimate) authority to regulate affairs of men in
a given territory generally a state.
As per the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the key attributes of good
governance include transparency, responsibility, accountability, participation and
responsiveness to the needs of the people. A Government is expected to be fully
accountable to its people and transparent in the use of public resources.
_____________________________________________________________________
13. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English, Sixth edition, Oxford
University Press, page 557

GOOD COVERNANCE AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION

The basic premise behind the right to information is that, since government is for the
people; it should be open and accountable and should have nothing to conceal from
the people it purports to represent. In a responsible government like ours where all
the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there could be no
secrets. The right to know, though not absolute, makes citizens wary when secrecy is
claimed for common routine business of administration. Such secrecy is hardly
desirable. Information is an antidote to corruption, it limits abuse of discretion,
protects civil liberties, it provides consumer information, it provides peoples
participation and brings awareness of laws and policies and is the elixir of the media.
Currently, the words governance and good governance are being increasingly
used in development literature. Bad governance is being increasingly regarded as
one of the root causes of all evil within our societies. Governance means the process
of decision making and the process by which decisions are either implemented or
failure in implementation is acknowledged and remedied.
Actually good governance has eight major facets. It is participatory, consensus
oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and
inclusive and follows the rule of law. It is assessed that if corruption is minimized, the
views of the minorities and vulnerable members of society are heard, that promotes
governance. Good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in its totality.
However, to ensure sustainable human development, action must be taken to work
towards this ideal. The right to information is one of the methods by which success
may be achieved in good governance.

Another important aspect is that in India we have not given respect and prominence to
the rights of the individual Citizen. True democracy is impossible until we recognize
the majesty of the individual Citizen. If individual Citizens are empowered to ensure
greater accountability and transparency in governance, it can bring about a major
change. There has been no vehicle available for individual citizens to impact the
governance structure. In a system reeking with corruption and becoming increasingly
insensitive to the problems of the disadvantaged Citizenry, the Right to Information
has shown promise of empowering Citizens to get accountability and act as an
enforcer of good governance.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS NOT ABSOLUTE

The Act itself is self-restrictive in nature. The Act does not make the Right to
Information an absolute right but imposes restriction on this right. Section 8(1) of the
Act deals with exemption from disclosure of information. Though in the proviso
clause and under Sub-Section (2), (3) of Section 8 again restrict Section 8 (1) to some
extent by saying those information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a state
legislature shall not be denied to any person or by giving overriding effect of the Act
over the Official Secrets Act, 1923, by saying if public interest in disclosure
outweighs the harm to the protected interest, in such case public authority may allow
access to information. But this has to be kept in mind that proviso clause of Section 8
(1) and Sub-Sections (2) and (3) are exceptions and exemption from disclosure of
certain information as stated earlier is the rule.
Section 24 lays down that the Act has no application to certain organizations. These
are the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the

Act, as organizations established by the Central Government. The Act also cannot be
applied for certain intelligence and security organizations established by the State
Government as that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify.
Information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and violation of human rights
shall not be excluded under this Section. Only one exception is that if the information
in respect of violation of human rights is there, after obtaining the approval of Central
Information Commission such information shall be provided.
While discussing other laws relating to the restriction on communication of
information, first comes the Constitution of India. The Constitution is the supreme
law of the land and any law which ultravires (goes beyond authority) the Constitution
or made in violation of it is void abinitio (void from its very beginning). Article 19(1)
(a) is the main source of right to information and Article 19(2) puts reasonable
restriction on it. It is not wise to make access to information absolute for the security
of the state and to maintain tranquillity and harmony within the country some facts /
information must be kept unpublished. Under Article 19(2), the state is empowered to
make any law which imposes reasonable restrictions on such right on the grounds of
sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relation with foreign
states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.
Sections 123, 124, and 162 of The Indian Evidence Act provide to hold the disclosure
of documents. Section 123 provides that any head of department may refuse to
provide information on affairs of state by stating that it is a state secret will entitle not
to disclose the information. In a similar manner section 124 states that no public
officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official

confidence. Section 162 provides court not to inspect a document relating to matters
of state.
Under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 the Central Government is empowered to declare
any information as restricted information which cannot be made public or published.
The Central Government may by order restrict the disclosure of information relating
to atomic plant, mode of operation, substances, mode of acquisition of materials,
transaction, purchase, theory, design, construction, research, technology etc. of an
atomic plant.
The All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 prohibits unauthorized communication
of information by member of All India Services. The Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964, also prohibits unauthorized communication of information.
By virtue of Article 19 (2), the State has made many laws like The Official Secrets
Act which prohibits disclosure of official communication and enacted restrictive
provisions in other laws on communication of information. In public dealings and
state affairs high secrecy was used to be maintained by public officers as part of their
duty. Any kind of information is covered under the Act provided it is a Secret
which includes any official code, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note,
document or information Nowhere the word secret or official secrets are defined
in the Act. The limitation is that the Act applies only to official secrets and not to
secrets of a private nature. Hence, the Act extends to the secrets of every
Governmental Affairs; thereby the common men are desisted from accessing the
information under a procedure established by law.
Section 52 of the Competition Act, 2002, says that information relating to any
enterprise, being an information which has been obtained by or on behalf of the
Commission, without the previous permission in writing, shall not be disclosed.

In the Bureau of Indian Standard Act, 1986, it has been laid down that any
information obtained by an inspecting officer or the Bureau from any statement made
or information supplied or any evidence given or from inspection made under the
provision of this Act shall be treated as confidential.

CRITICISM

The Act has been criticized on several grounds. It provides for information on
demand, so to speak, but does not sufficiently stress information on matters related to
food, water, environment and other survival needs that must be given pro-actively, or
suo moto, by public authorities. The Act does not emphasize active intervention in
educating people about their right to access information. Some of the criticisms are
given below -

1. Government may be flooded with RTI applications and that would jam the
government machinery. There are nine states have passed the similar act
before the coming of this act and none of them is flooded with the
applications. Filling an application do take time , energy and money
.Therefore no person will file an application until and unless he/she is really in
need of that information .I think these fears are hypothetical as visible in the
case of Delhi, 14000 applications have been filed in 120 departments in more
than 60 months. This means less than 2 applications per Department per
month .And this is in no way increasing the burden of the government
functionaries.

2. Actually it require huge amount of resources to implement RTI Act. Every

year the government is not able to implement the policies because of the
corruption involved and the leakages during the implementation process. Rajiv
Gandhi had admitted that only 15 paisa in every rupee sanctioned for
development reached the intended beneficiaries .With the coming of this act
the government would be able to save their precious money (about 85%)
which is lost in the hands of the corrupt officials.

3. According to the RTI Act, the first appeal will lie before the officer who is
senior in rank to the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the Public Authority
in cases where the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the PIO. But the
Act is silent about the power and procedure of this first appellate authority.

4. Again, as per provision of the said Act, the information commissioners are
empowered to impose any of the penalties provided under the Act. Penalty
would naturally mean that the amount that has been levied would be remitted
to the government. But in this Act there is no such express legal provision or
rule for implementing this provision.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

No demonstrative government can survive without accountability and basic postulate

of accountability that is the people should have information about the functioning of
the government. It is only when people know how government is functioning that they

can fulfil the role which democracy assigns to them and makes a really effective
participatory governing system. Transparency in government in order to ensure that
citizens interests are pursued are protected by those in power is just one of the reasons
that access to information is essential for good governance. The RTI Act aims at
securing and ensuring in the administration. The participation of the people in
democratic form of government should not be limited merely to casting votes but
should also include exercising sound judgment in the conduct of the government from
time to time. The people shall be able to fulfil their role only when they have full
access to the information in respect of the functioning of the government. The concept
of an open government has emanated from the right to know. The officer when acting
under RTI Act should not treat the information seekers as enemies and adversaries.
They are the citizens of India and the authorities are functioning as their
representatives. They must be provided with information in case they need the same.
The Law Commission has also given in its Report 14 on the Whistle Blowers Law
which is called Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Act. This Report has not been
translated into law by Parliament. The proper thing for any good Government will be
to enact the Whistle Blower Law on the basis of the draft Bill provided by the Law
Commission.
The original Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowers) Bill placed in Parliament
was weak and ineffective. The Standing Committee Report however has made some
very good recommendations. These should be accepted at once and a more
comprehensive Whistleblower Protection Bill should be passed by Parliament. 15 The
_____________________________________________________________________
14. http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/179rptp1.pdf, last visited on 15.02.2012
15. No pressing need to amend RTI Act, The Statesmen, (10.12.2011), Saturday Interview.

Central Information Commission has passed a resolution that if any citizen who is
asking for information is attacked or killed, his queries will be accessed by the
Commission and put on the website. Similarly in Rajasthan the government has taken
a decision that in the case of any person who has asked for information from the
panchayat and has been attacked, the government will initiate a social audit by the
state team.16
The second Administrative Reforms Commission Chairperson, Shri Veerappa Moily
today submitted the first report on 'Right to Information - Master key to good
governance' to the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. The following are the key
recommendations17 of the Commission on the subject:

1. The Official Secrets Act, 1923(OSA) in its current form is incongruous with
the regime of transparency in a democratic society. OSA should be repealed,
and suitable safeguards to protect security of State should be incorporated in
the National Security Act.
2. At least half the members of the Information Commissions should be drawn
from non-Civil Service background, so that members represent the rich variety
and varied experience in society.
3. Complete reorganization of public records is a precondition for effective
implementation of RTI. A public Records Office should be established in each
State as a repository of expertise, to monitor, supervise, control and inspect all
public records. 1% of the funds of all flagship programmes of Government of
____________________________________________________________________
16. No pressing need to amend RTI Act, The Statesmen, (10.12.2011), Saturday Interview.
17.http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/international/laws_papers/india/arc_s
ubmit_rti_report_to_pm.pdf, last visited on 15.02.2012

India should be earmarked for five years for updating all records and building
necessary infrastructure.
4. The Information Commission should be entrusted with the authority and
responsibility of monitoring the implementation of the RTI Act in all public
authorities.
5. Clear and unambiguous guidelines need to be evolved to determine which
nongovernmental organizations would come under the purview of RTI Act.
6. Most requests for information are usually to use it as a tool for grievance
redressal. States may be advised to establish independent public grievance
redressal authorities to deal with complaints of delay, harassment and
corruption. These authorities should work in close coordination with the
Information Commission.
7. Certain safeguards should be introduced to discourage frivolous and vexatious
requests so that the system is not overloaded, and discipline and harmony are
not jeopardized.
8. A roadmap should be charted out for effective implementation of RTI Act in
the Legislature and Judiciary at all levels.
9. The Commission made specific recommendations, and suggested a roadmap to
implement each of them. Detailed recommendations pertain to a variety of
issues - including a civil service conduct rules and office procedures, record
keeping, capacity building and awareness generation, and the exercise of
power to remove difficulties.
However, in spite of the above recommendations, some suggestions are given below
to make the RTI Act more effective and useful

1. As per provision of section 24 of the RTI Act, where any information

is requested concerning human rights violation addressed to the
security and intelligence organizations as enumerated in second
schedule of the Act and the state organizations which are specified by
the state government by notification, such information will be provided
subject to the approval of the concerned Information Commission
within 45days.This provision is meaningless as to access information
in the case of human rights violations like custodial deaths, tortures,
causing disappearances and other violences to the people by the
security personnel in abuse of power, which became frequent
happening nowadays. The RTI Act may be made useful to the people if
the said provisions are substituted by in case of information sought
for concerns human right violations, the proviso to Section 7(1) shall
be made applicable. By doing so every information requested by a
citizen which concerns human right violation, the intelligence and
security organization will provide the information within 48hours like
other public authorities who are to provide the information concerning
the life and liberty within 48hours.The classification of intelligence
and security organization for permitting them to furnish information
within 45days subject to the approval of the information commission,
is not a reasonable classification.
2. The provision as mentioned in Section 8 of the Act relating to secrecy
has become an exception under the RTI Act. This section is required to
be made clearer. This can be done by giving guideline to illustrate the
different aspects which are exempted.

3. There may be possibility that some people may misuse this act to
harass the officials. So some provisions may be inserted in the RTI Act
to empower the Information Commissions to award cost against the
complainants or the appellants for initiating frivolous and vexatious
applications to the public information officers.
4. Section 26 of the Act provides that appropriate government shall
organize educational programme regarding the citizens to impart the
training in RTI Act. The government is expected to give priority to this
programme and expected to spent money to publish guide books as
contemplated under the Act and also to impart in its officers a sense of
willingness to provide as much information as possible when they are
requested by citizens.
5. The Act is silent about the power and procedure of this first appellate
authority as mentioned above. A rule in this connection is necessary to
be framed to deal with this appeal and the power to impose penalty, if
any.

6. As per provision of the said Act, the information commissioners are

empowered to impose any of the penalties provided under the Act. But
in this Act there is no such express legal provision or rule for
implementing this provision, as mentioned earlier. So new rule may be
imposed to fill up this lacuna.

7. When an application is to be filed under this Act, then along with the
application proper fees is also to be given to the government. There are
various modes for payment of such fees and one of such mode is cash
payment. This will be the most convenient way for collection of fees.
A register is required in this connection to maintain for recording the
time, date, name of the applicant along with fees paid. In this
connection receipt maybe issued showing the fees that have been paid
by the applicant.
8. A person making request for information shall be provided with
information free of charge, where the public authority fails to comply
with the time limits specified under this Act. In such cases the public
information officer cannot take any charge for supplying information
but yet the information is to be provided to applicant. A contingency
fund may be created to meet such expenditure as giving of information
in such cases would involve pending of money.
9. The legislature should have brought about a constitutional amendment
to include the right to information as a fundamental right and the Act
should have merely constituted the Information Commissions and
appointed the Public Information Officers. With the separate
government agency to tackle the problems relating to the fundamental
right to information, the evils of bureaucratic pressures and whimsical
administrative interpretations could have been kept at bay and
democracy celebrated. Inclusion of right to information as a
fundamental right would have also been in conformity with the
decisions of the apex court.