RIGHT TO INFORMATON ACT – 2005: A REVIEW

1 2

Dr.KopperlaSreenivasulu,Prof.B.V.Raghavulu

1M Sc , M A , [Litt] , M Ed , PGCTE , M Phil , Ph D , [Edn], Assistant Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Ananthapuramu,AndhraPradesh,India.

2M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D., Head, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapuramu,AndhraPradesh,India.

RIGHTTOINFORMATION:

TheRighttoinformationortherighttofreedomofinformationreferstoanindividual'srightorfreedomtoseekpublicinformation.Itisinformationmeansany materialrelatingtotheaffairs,administrativeordecisionofapublicauthority It ismandatorythattheflowoftheinformationmustbefree.

The great democratizing power of information has given us all the chance to effectchangeandalleviatepovertyinwayswecannotevenimaginetoday Right toinformationisaweapontobringgoodgovernanceinthecountry

Itistruethatrighttoinformationprovedtobeatoolinagreatdemocracytoprovideitscitizensafunctionaltransparencyofthegovernance.Thetoolintheform of'righttoinformation'isavailableforeverycitizenofIndia.Itisnecessaryto knowtheapplicabilityoftheRighttoInformationAct.

ItisfactthataftertheConstitutionofIndia,itistheonlyenactmentinterpretedby judiciaryinitslittleage.AnothernecessitytoknowabouttheRighttoInformationActisthatitisacompletecodeinitself.

Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that information is currency that every citizen requirestoparticipateinthelifeandgovernanceofthesociety.

Inanydemocraticpolity,greatertheaccess,greaterwillbetheresponsiveness, andgreatertherestrictions,greaterthefeelingofpowerlessnessandalienation.

TheInformationisthebasisforknowledge,whichprovokesthought,andwithoutthinkingprocess,thereisnoexpression.JamesMadisonsaid.

Theknowledgewillforevergovernignoranceandapeoplewhomeantobetheir owngovernorsmustarmthemselveswiththepowerknowledgegives.

ProcedureforAccesstoInformation:

Section 6 postulates that a person who desires to obtain any information under theActshallmakearequestinwritingorthroughelectronicmeanstotheauthoritiesspecifyingtheparticularsoftheinformationsoughtbyhim.

Hon'bleCalcuttaHighCourt:

Section6oftheActprescribestheprocedureforaccessingtoinformationheldby publicauthority Anycitizenmakingtherequestisnowobligedtoexplainwhy theinformationisneeded.TheActspecifiestimeframeforcomplyingwiththe request.ThePublicInformationOfficerhastofurnishtheinformationwithinthe stipulatedtime.

Ifnotfurnishingwithinstipulatedtime,thenitwillbetreatedasrefusalofinformation.The Public Information Officer will be personally liable for penalty in delayingtheinformation,butthispowerisonlywiththeappropriateinformation Commission.

Where to make the request for information? If any citizen wants to make a requestforseekinganyinformationfrompublicauthority,firstofall,theapplicantshouldknowthattowhomhehastomaketherequest.UnderthisActpublic authoritiesareclassifiedintotwocategories,namely,CentralandStateauthorities.

There is no hierarchy between them; both are separate in their function. Subclause(3)ofSection5oftheAct,saysthateveryPublicInformationOfficer(CentralorState)shalldealwith.requestsfrompersonsseekinginformationandrenderreasonableassistancetothepersonsseekingsuchinformation.

PublicInformationOfficers(PIO):

Act, designate as many officers as the Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs)orStatePublicInformationofficers(SPIOs),asthecasemaybe,inall administrativeunitsorofficesunder

Itasmaybenecessaryforprovidinginformationtothepersonrequestingforthe information under this Act. Public authority also has to designate APIOs. According to Section 5(2) of theAct, every public authority shall designate an officer, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each subdivisionallevelorothersub-districtlevelasaCentralAssistantPublicInformation0fficer(CAPIO).

TheStateAssistantPublicInformationOfficer(SAPIO),asthecasemaybe,to receivetheapplicationsforinformationandappealsunderthisActforforwardingthesameforthwithtotheCPIOortheSPIOorseniorofficerspecifiedunder sub-section(1)ofSection19ortheCentralInformationCommissionortheState InformationCommission,asthecasemaybe.

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Act obligates every public authority as defined in Section 2(h), to designate as many officers, as Public InformationOfficers,inalladministrativeunitsorofficeunderitasmaybenecessary to provide information to persons requesting for the information under Section5oftheAct.

PIOmayseekassistanceofotherofficers: Section5(4)oftheActempowersthePIOtoseektheassistanceofanyotherofficerasheorsheconsidersitnecessaryfortheproperdischargeofhisorherduties. TheCentralInformationCommissionheld.

It such alternative options are available to CPIO, his rejecting the RTIapplicationonthegroundofnon-availabilityofinformationdoesnotseemjustifiedgiventhecircumstancesofthecase.CPIOisrequiredunderSection5(3)of theActtorenderreasonableassistancetothepersonsseekingsuchinformation, whichpresupposesapplicationofmindregardingwheretheinformationcanbe located.

Itcanbeaccessed.PIOisaccordinglydirectedtoensure,byinvokingtheprovisionsofSections5(4)or6(3)oftheAct,thataresponseisprovidedtotheappellantregardingtheinformationaskedforbyhimwithinthreeweeksfromthedate ofreceiptofthisdecision.

Accordingtosub-section(5)ofSection5,anyofficer,whoseassistancehasbeen soughtbyCPIO/SPIO,shallrenderallassistancetotheCPIO/SPIO,seekinghis orherassistanceandforthepurposesofanycontraventionoftheprovisionsof thisAct,suchotherofficershallbetreatedasaPublicInformationOfficer

Requestforobtaininginformation:

ModeandlanguageoftheApplicationforinformation:AccordingtoSection6of theAct,aperson,whodesirestoobtainanyinformationunderthisAct?Itshall makearequestinwritingorthroughelectronicmeansinEnglish,Hindiandin theofficiallanguageofthearea.

Theapplicationisbeingmade;accompanyingsuchfeeasmaybeprescribed.The Section also provides that where such request cannot be made in writing, the CPIO/ SPIO shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the requestorallytoreducethesameinwriting,Applicationtowhom.

ItisapplicationforrequestinginformationmaybemadetoTheCPIOorCAPIO incaseofCentralPublicAuthorityandTheSPIOorSAPIOincaseofStatePublicAuthority

Particularsofsoughtinformation:Applicationshallspecifytheparticularsofthe information sought by the applicants. Reason for request is not necessary.An Copyright©2022,IERJ.Thisopen-accessarticleispublishedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial4.0InternationalLicensewhichpermitsShare(copyandredistributethematerialinany mediumorformat)andAdapt(remix,transform,andbuilduponthematerial)undertheAttribution-NonCommercialterms.

Public authority has to designate PIOs According to Section 5(1) of the Act, every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the enactment of this

applicantmakingrequestforinformationshallnotberequiredtogiveanyreason for requesting the information and any other personal details except those that 5 maybenecessaryforcontactinghim

Transferapplicationtoappropriateauthority: According to Section 6(3), where an application is made to a public authority requestingforaninformation:

Ÿ Itisheldbyanother

Ÿ The subject-matter of which is more closely connected with the functionsofanotherpublicauthority

Thepublicauthority,towhichsuchapplicationismade,shalltransfertheapplicationandsuchpartofitasmaybeappropriatetothatotherpublicauthorityand informtheapplicantimmediatelyaboutsuchtransfer

Transferredinformantmayhavefivedaysextra.TheprovisooftheSectionfurthersaysthatthetransferofanapplicationpursuanttothissub-sectionshallbe madeassoonaspracticablebutinnocaselaterthanfivedaysfromthedateof receiptoftheapplication.

Applicationforseekinginformation(Howtoapply?):

Thereisnoformatofapplicationforseekinginformation.Theapplicationcanbe madeonplainpaper Theapplicationshould,however,havethenameandcomplete postal address of the applicant. Even in cases where the information is soughtelectronically

The application should contain the name and postal address of the applicant. Still,someoftheStatesthroughtheirRuleshavegivenspecimenapplicationfor thepersonseekingtheinformationtomaintainuniformityofthecontentsofthe applicationandtoremovetheambiguityintheapplications.

Itsuchspecimenisnotbindinginnature;applicantcanmakeitinitsownway According to Rule 3 of the Gujarat RTI Rules, 2010, a person who desires to obtaininformationshallmakeanapplicationinaprescribedFormorinahealthy typedandhandwrittenapplication.

ItiscontainingallessentialdetailsdescribedinaprescribedFormaccompanying withtheprescribedfeesorthroughthee-mediatothePublicInformationOfficer oftheconcernedPublicAuthority

Aperson applying through the e-media shall have to pay the fees within seven daysfromthedateofapplication,failingwhichtheapplicationshallbetreatedas withdrawn.

Feesandchargesforobtaininginformation:

Everyapplicationseekingtoobtaininformationshallbeaccompaniedbytheprescribedfees.Itisexerciseofthepowersconferredbyclauses(b)and(c)ofsubsection(2)ofSection27oftheRighttoInformationAct,2005.

TheCentralGovernmenthasframedtheRighttoInformation(RegulationofFee and Cost) Rules, 2005, according to which a request for obtaining information shallbeaccompaniedbyanapplicationfeeofrupeesten(Rs.10).InGujaratitis Rs.20.

NofeesforBPLFamily:

FeesshallnotbepayablebyapersonbelongingtotheBelowPovertyLine(BPL) families; if such person encloses with the application a certified copy or a true copyoftheBelowPovertyLineCardoracertificateissuedinthatbehalfbythe concernedauthority

The fee or charges for providing information snail be charged by theAccounts Officerofthepublicauthorityatthefollowingrates:

Ÿ

Rupeestwoforeachpage(inA-4orA-3sizepaper)createdandcopied.

Ÿ

Ÿ

Actualchargeorcostpriceofacopyinlargesizepaper

Actualcostpriceforsamplesormodels;and

Ÿ

Itisinspectionofrecords,nofeeforthefirsthour;andafeeofrupees fiveforeachfifteenminutes.

Ÿ The fraction thereof thereafter for information provided in diskette or floppyrupeesfiftyperdisketteorfloppy

Ÿ Itisinformationprovidedinprintedformatthepricefixedforsuchpublicationorrupeestwoperpageofphotocopyforextractsfromthepublication.

The Public Information Officer shall inform the applicant regarding other fees andchargestobepaidasprovidedtherefore.

AccordingtoSection7(5)oftheAct,whereaccesstoinformationistobeprovidedhitheprintedorinanyelectronicformat,theapplicantshallpaysuchfeeor chargesasmaybeprescribedinthisbehalf.But,thefeeshallbereasonableand nosuchfeeshallbechargedfromthepersonswhoareofBPLasmaybedeterminedbytheappropriateGovernment.Nofee,ifauthorityfailstocomplytime limits.

Section7(6)oftheActsaysthatthepersonmakingrequestfortheinformation shallbeprovidedtheinformationfreeofchargewhereapublicauthorityfailsto complywiththetimelimits.

Modeofpaymentoffees:

ItisAccordingtotheRighttoInformation(RegulationofFeeandCost)Rules, 2005.Thefeesandchargeforprovidinginformationmaybereceived: Ÿ

Bywayofcashagainstproperreceipt. Ÿ

Bydemanddraft,orbankerscheque,orIndianPostalOrderpayableto theAccountsOfficerofthepublicauthority

TheGujaratGovernmenthadsubstituteditsEighttoInformationRules,2005by theGujaratRighttoInformationRulesof2010mostprobably

Itprovidesmaximummodesofpaymentoffeesandchargesforobtaininginformation,whichisdynamicandcitizenfriendly AccordingtotheseRules,theprescribedfeesshallbepaid: Ÿ

Incashwhereverfacilityforcashreceiptsavailable,or Ÿ

ByDemandDraft. Ÿ

ItisPayOrder,and Ÿ

IntheformofNon-JudicialStamporNon-JudicialStampPaper Ÿ StampingthroughFrankingorElectronicStamping. Ÿ

CourtfeeStamporJudicialStampPaper Ÿ

Ÿ

IndianPostalOrderorRevenueStamp.

The Challan credited in the Government Treasury through authorized banksinthebudgethead 0070-otheradministrative services, 60-other services, 800-other receipt, (17)- fees and other charges under these rules.

The fees and charges paid by demand draft or by pay order or by Indian postal order shall be duly crossed and shall be drawn in favour of Government of Gujarator,asthecasemaybe,theconcernedPublicAuthority.

Disposalofrequest:

TheCPIO/SPIOonreceiptofarequestforinformationshall,asexpeditiouslyas possible,butshallnotexceedthetimelimitationasprovidedbytheActandlimitationstartsfromthereceiptoftherequest.

It is information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unlessitwoulddisproportionatelydiverttheresourcesofthepublicauthorityor wouldbedetrimentaltothesafetyorpreservationoftherecordinquestion.

The information is pertaining to the third party, before taking any decision the PublicInformationOfficershalltakeintoconsiderationtherepresentationmade byathirdpartyunderSection11.ThePublicInformationOfficercandisposeof therequestinthefollowingmanners.Provideinformation:

ThePIOhastoprovidetheinformationonpaymentofsuchfeeasmaybeprescribed.Wheretheinformationsoughtforconcernstheeorlibertyofaperson, thesameshallbeprovidedwithinforty-eighthoursofthereceiptoftherequest.

It isAccording to Section 7(4) of theAct, where access to the record or a part thereofisrequiredtobeprovidedunderthisActandthepersontowhomaccessis tobeprovidedissensorilydisabled,theCPIO/SPIOshallprovideassistanceto enableaccesstotheinformation,includingprovidingsuchassistanceasmaybe appropriatefortheinspection.

Rejecttherequestwithreasons:

ThePIOmayrejecttherequestforanyofthereasonsspecifiedinSection8(exemptionfromdisclosure)andSection9(wouldinvolveininfringementofcopyright).AccordingtoSection7(8)oftheAct,wherearequesthasbeenrejected, thePIOshallcommunicatetothepersonmakingtherequest:

Ÿ

Thereasonsforsuchrejection.

Ÿ

The period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred;and

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Theparticularsoftheappellateauthority

AccordingtoSection9oftheAct,withoutprejudicetotheprovisionsofSection 8(exemptionfromdisclosure),aPublicInformationOfficermayrejectarequest for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringementofcopyrightsubsistinginapersonotherthantheState.

ThetwoJudgesareBenchofKeralaHighCourtdisposedofthewritAppealwith somedirections.TheCourtdirectedtheAppellant-Banktofurnishinformation totherespondent,regardingthetransfersmadebytheBankinrespectoftheclerical staff to Ernakulam District for the period from 2002 to 2006 within in a month'stime,fromthedateoforder

The Bank will also provide the guidelines for effecting transfer of the clerical staff,ifsuchguidelinesareavailablewiththem.

TheGujaratHighCourthasgivenaharshjudgment,wheretheCourtdirectedthe citizenapplicant(Mr RasiklalMardia)nottomakecaseofsaidinformationfor anypurposewhatsoever TheCourtsaidthattheGujaratStateInformationCommissionisherebyrestrainedfromproceedingfurtherwithapplicationpreferred byMr RasiklalMardiaunderSection18oftheAct,beingComplaint.

PIOs are hereby directed not to entertain any applications preferred at the instanceofMr RasiklalMardiaundertheprovisionsoftheAct,concerningthe petitioner ItsgroupCompaniesforimpartingor'disclosinginformationtoMr RasiklalMardia,withoutfollowingdueprocedureundertheAct.

In compliance with the aforesaid directions given in the aforesaid paras of this judgmentnoranysuchapplicationsshallbeproceededfurtherbyPIOs,except after following provisions of the Act, and interpretation thereof made hereinabove,inthisjudgment.Rulemadeabsoluteinboththepetitions.Transfer theapplicationtoappropriateAuthority

Whereanapplicationismadetoapublicauthorityrequestingforaninformation:

i. Itisheldbyanotherpublicauthority

ii. The subject-matter of which is more loosely connected with the functionsofanotherpublicauthority,

Thepublicauthority,towhich'suchapplicationismade,shalltransfertheapplicationorsuchpartofitasmaybeappropriatetothatotherpublicauthorityand inform the applicant immediately about such transfer Partial disclosure of the information:

IntermsofSection10oftheAct,onlythatpar!oftherecordwhichdoesnotcontainanyinformationwhichisexemptfromdisclosureandwhichcanreasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information, may be provided. Non–protectivepartoftheinformationshouldbereleased.

Itisrequestforaccesstoinformationisrejectedonthegroundthatitisinrelation toinformationwhichisexemptfromdisclosure,then,notwithstandinganything contained in thisAct, access may be provided to that part of the record which doesnotcontainanyinformation.

ItisexemptfromdisclosureunderthisActandwhichcanreasonablybesevered fromanypartthatcontainsexemptinformation.Whereaccessisgrantedtoapart oftherecord,thePublicInformationOfficershallgiveanoticetotheapplicant, informing:

(i) Thatonlypartoftherecordrequested,afterseveranceoftherecordcontaininginformationwhichisexemptfromdisclosure,isbeingprovided.

(ii) The reasons for the decision including any findings on any material questionoffact,referringtothematerialonwhichthosefindingswere based.

(iii) Thenameanddesignationofthepersongivingthedecision.

(iv) The details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee whichtheapplicantisrequiredtodeposit.

(v) It is rights with respect to review of the decision regarding nondisclosureofpartoftheinformation.

Theamountoffeechargedortheformofaccessprovided,includingtheparticularsoftheseniorofficerspecifiedundersub-section(1)ofSection19ortheCentralInformationCommissionortheStateInformationCommission,asthecase maybe,timelimit,processandanyotherformofaccess.

Timelimitforprovidinginformation:

Iftherequesthasbeenmade8tothe-PIO,timelimittofurnishtheinformationiswithin30days.

Ÿ

IftherequesthasbeenmadetoanAPIO,timelimittofurnishtheinformation iswithin35days.

IfthePIOtransferstherequestto“someotherdepartment(betterconcerned withtheinformationrequested),thetimeallowedis35days.

Ÿ

Ÿ

Where an application for information or appeal is given to a CAPIO or a SAPIO,asthecasemaybe,aperiodoffivedaysshallbeaddedincomputing theperiodforresponsespecifiedundersub-section(1)ofSection7.

InformationaboutHumanRightsviolationsbySecurityagencieshavetobe provided within 45 days with: the prior approval ofthe Central InformationCommission.

Ÿ

Ÿ

However,inanyoftheabovecases,iflifeorlibertyisinvolved,thePIOhas tocomplywithin48hours.

Exclusionoftime:Sincetheinformationistobepaidfor,thetimebetween thereplyofthePIOandthetimetakestodepositthefurtherfeesforinformationisexcludedfromthetimeallowed.

Ÿ Information not provided in stipulated time will be treated as refusal: If information is not provided within this period, it is treated as a refusal. Refusalwithorwithoutreasonsmaybeagroundforappeal.ThePatnaHigh Court held that before expiry of 30 days from date of information was sought;petitionerwasalreadytransferredfrompostofPIOandhenolonger heldthatpost,showbecausenoticewasaddressedtopetitionerwithwrong description of post held. Notices thus remain unreasoned, yet penalty was imposed.ItwasheldbytheCourtthatimpositionofpenaltywasimproperin thegivencircumstances.

Thefollowingtableshowsthemaximumtimewhichmaybetakentodisposeof theapplicationsindifferentsituations:

Table1:DisposeoftheApplicationsinDifferentSituations

S. N. Situation Limitfordisposingof applications

1. Supplyofinformationinnormalcourse. 30days

2. Supply of information if it concerns the life 48hours

3. Supply of information if the application isreceivedthroughAPIO: 05 days shall be added to the timeperiodindicatedatSr No. 1and2.

4. Supply of information if the application and request is received after transfer fromanotherpublicauthority:(a)Innormal course (b) In case the information concernsthelifeorlibertyofaperson.

5. Supply of information by organizations specified in the Second Schedule: (a) If informationrelatestoallegationsofviolationofhuman

(a) Within 30 days of the receipt of the application by the concerned public authority, (b) Within 48 hours of receipt of the application by theconcernedpublicauthority

(a)45daysfromthereceiptof application.

MaharashtraFreedomofInformationAct,2002: TheMaharashtraFreedomofInformationAct,2002bringsnotonlyGovernment and semi-Government bodies within its purview but also State public sector units,co-operatives,registeredsocieties(includingeducationalinstitutions)and publictrusts.

It provides that Public Information Officers (PIOs) who fail to perform their dutiesmaybefineduptoRs.250foreachday'sdelayinfurnishinginformation. Where an information officer has willfully provided incorrect and misleading informationorinformationthatisincomplete.

TheappellateauthorityhearingthemattermayimposeafineofuptoRs.2,000. TheInformationOfficer(IO)concernedmayalsobesubjecttointernaldisciplinaryaction.TheActevenprovidesforthesettingupofacounciltomonitorthe workingsoftheAct.

Thecouncilshallbecomprisedofseniormembersofgovernment,membersof thepressandrepresentativesofNGOs.Theyaretoreviewthefunctioningofthe Act at least once every six months. Exclusion clauses have been reduced to barelyten.

TheFreedomofInformationAct,2002: Thereformofrighttoinformationatcentrallevelspeedsupinattheendof20th century,whileHon'bleSupremeCourtissueddirectionstoprotectvoters'rightto knowantecedentsofcandidates.

ItisimplementedtheSupremeCourtdirectionstheFreedomofInformationAct,

2002wasdraftedalongwiththirdamendmentstotheRepresentationofthePeopleAct,1951.

ThisActwasseverelycriticisedforpermittingtoomanyexemptions.Itisonly under the standard grounds of national security and sovereignty, but also for requeststhatwouldinvolvedisproportionatediversionoftheresourcesofapublicauthority.

Therewasnoupperlimitonthechargesthatcouldbelevied.Therewerenopenaltiesfornotcomplyingwitharequestforinformation.

Thesaidamendmentwaschallengedandcontilatedthatsomeofthedirections issuedbytheSupremeCourtwereincorporatedbythestatutoryprovisionsbut withregardtotheremainingdirectionsinSection33b.

Itwasprovidedthatnocandidatewouldbeliabletodiscloseorfurnishanysuch informationinrespectofhiselectionwhichisnotrequiredtobedisclosedorfurnishedundertheActortheRulesmadeunder,despitethedirectionsissuedbythe SupremeCourt.

Thus,thevalidityofSection33bwaschallengedonthegroundthatitviolatesthe fundamental rights of the citizens and voters declared and recognised by the SupremeCourtinAssociationforDemocraticReform.15Athree-judgeBenchof theSupremeCourt:

(a) Section 33b is, on the face of it, beyond legislative competence and, beingviolationofArticle19(l)(a)oftheConstitution,isillegal,therefore,itisnullandvoid.Avoter,beingfirstcitizenofcountry,hasafundamentalrightunderArticle19(1)(a)toknowantecedentsofacandidateandsaidrightisindependentofanystatutoryrightunderelection law

(b) LegislaturecanremovebasisofdecisionrenderedbyCompetentCourt underArticle141,therebyrenderingthatdecisionineffectivebutLegislaturehasnopowertoaskinstrumentalitiesofStatetodisobeyordisregarddecisionsgivenbyCourt.

Righttodiscloserofinformationunderotherlegislations:

ThevariousIndianlawsprovidefortherighttoaccessinformationin specific contexts.Section76oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872,containswhathas beentermedaFreedomofInformationActinembryonicform.

Thisprovisionrequirespublicofficialstoprovidecopiesofpublicdocumentsto anyonewhohasarighttoinspectthem.TheFactoriesAct,1948providesforcompulsorydisclosureofinformationtofactoryworkersregardingdangerincluding health hazards and the measures to overcome such hazards, arising from their exposuretodangerousmaterials.Whilethisisanexcellentprovision,inpractice itisviolatedwithimpunity

TheEnvironment(Protection)Act,1986andtheEnvironmentalImpactAssessment.Regulations(EIAR0provideforpublicconsultationanddisclosureinvariouscircumstances.

The Environmental ImpactAssessment Regulations (EIAR) allow for a procedure for public hearings and publication of the executive summary of any proposalforanyprojectaffectingtheenvironmentbythepersonseekingtoexecute thatproject.

Althoughthisprovisionismeanttofacilitatecitizeninput,infact,itistoolimited andenvironmentalgroupshavehadtogotothecourtstogetmorecompletedisclosure.Regardlessoftheseprovisions.

ThesystemofgovernanceinIndiahastraditionallybeenopaque,withtheState retainingthecolonialOfficialSecretsActandcontinuingtooperateinsecrecyat theadministrativelevel.

TheOfficialSecretsActenactedin1923stillretainsitsoriginalform,apartfrom someminoramendmentsin1967.Theseprovisionshavebeenroundlycriticised.

TheCentralCivilServiceConductRules,(CCSCR)1964bolstertheprovisions oftheOfficialSecretsActbyprohibitingGovernmentservantsfromcommunicatinganyofficialdocumenttoanyonewithoutauthorisation.

Section 123 of the Indian EvidenceAct, 1872 also prohibits the giving of evidencefromunpublishedofficialrecordswithoutthepermissionoftheheadofthe relevantdepartment,whoisfreetograntortowithholdsuchpermissionasheor sheseesfit.

Thepoorflowofinformationiscompoundedbytwofactors,namely,lowlevels ofliteracyandtheabsenceofeffectivecommunicationtoolsandprocesses.

In many regions, the standard of record-keeping is extremely poor Most Governmentofficeshavestacksofdustyfileseverywhereprovidingeasyexcusesfor refusingaccesstorecordsonthespeciousexcusethattheyhavebeenmisplaced.

The rapid growth of information technology, on the other hand, has meant that most States in the country are now trying to promote technology, primarily to attract investment, and this is indirectly contributing to an improved flow of information.

ThecampaignfortherighttoinformationObjectionstotheOfficialSecretsAct havebeenraisedeversince1948,whenthePressLawsEnquiryCommitteerecommendedcertainamendments.In1977,aWorkingGroupwarformedbythe, Government to look into the possibilities of amending the Official SecretsAct 1923.

Unfortunately,theWorkingGroupdidnotrecommendchanges,asitfelttheAct relatedtotheprotectionofnationalsafetyanddidnotpreventthereleaseofinformationinthepublicinterestdespiteoverwhelmingevidencetothecontrary

In 1989 a Committeewas set up which recommendedlimitingtheareaswhere Governmentinformationcould,behiddenandopeningupofallotherspheresof information.Butnolegislationfollowedfromtheserecommendations.

th Inthelastdecadeof20 century,citizens'groupshavestarteddemandingtheoutrightrepealoftheOfficialSecretsActanditsreplacementbylegislationmaking thedutytodisclosethenormandsecrecytheexception.

Interestingly, in India, the movement for the right to information has been as vibrantintheheartsofmarginalisedpeopleasitisinthepagesofacademicjournalsandinthemedia.

Thisisnotsurprisingsincefoodsecurity,shelter,environment,employmentand othersurvivalneedsareinextricablylinkedtotherighttoinformation.

The National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) formed in thelate1990sbecameabroad-basedplatformforaction.Asthecampaigngathered momentum, it became clear that the right to information had to be legally enforceable.

ThePressCouncilofIndiadrewupthefirstmajordraftlegislationontherightto informationin1996.Thedraftaffirmedtherightofeverycitizentoinformation fromanypublicbody

Significantly,thetermpublicbodyincludednotonlytheState,butalsoallprivately-ownedundertakings,non-statutoryauthorities,companiesandotherbodieswhoseactivitiesaffectthepublicinterest.Informationthatcannotbedenied toParliamentorStateLegislaturescannotbedeniedtoacitizeneither

Thedraftprovidedforpenaltyclausesfordefaultingauthorities.Itisnextcame the Consumer Education Research Council (CERC) draft, by far the most detailedproposedfreedomofinformationlegislationinIndia.Inlinewithinternationalstandards,itgavetherighttoinformationtoanyone.

It has required public agencies at the federal arid state levels to maintain their recordsingoodorder,toprovideadirectoryofallrecordsundertheircontrol,to promotethecomputerisationofrecordsininterconnectednetworks.

Itispublishalllaws,regulations,guidelines,circularsrelatedtoorissuedbyGovernmentdepartmentsandanyinformationconcerningwelfareschemes.

ThedraftprovidedfortheoutrightrepealoftheOfficialSecretsAct,1923.This draftdidn'tmakeitthroughParliamenteither.Finally,in1997,aconferenceof Chief Ministers resolved that the Central and State Governments would work togetherontransparencyandtherighttoinformation.

The Centre agreed to take immediate steps, in consultation with the States, to introducefreedomofinformationlegislation,alongwithamendmentstotheOfficialSecretsAct,1923andtheIndianEvidenceAct,beforetheendof1997.

TheCentralandStateGovernmentsalsoagreedtoanumberofothermeasuresto promote openness.These included establishing accessible computerised information centre to provide information to the public on essential services, and speedingupongoingeffortstocomputeriseGovernmentoperations.

In this process, particular attention would be placed on computerisation of records of particular importance to the people such as land records, passports, investigationofoffences,administrationofjustice,taxcollection,andtheissue ofpermitsandlicences.

In1997,twoStateshadpassedRighttoInformationLegislation(TamilNaduand Goa)andtheGovernmentofIndiaappointedaworkinggroup,headedbyformer bureaucrat and consumer rights, activist Mr H.D. Shourie to draft what was reworkedintotheFreedomofInformationBill,2000.

ThisBillincludessomeprovisionsthatwerenotintheShouriedraft,suchasthe requirementthaturgentrequestsincasesinvolvinglifeandlibertyshouldgeta response within 48 hours. However, the Act has been criticised on several grounds.

It provides for information on demand, so to speak, but does not sufficiently stressinformationonmattersrelatedtofood,water,environmentandothersurvivalneedsthatmustbegivenpro-activelyandsuomoto,bypublicauthorities.

ThemostscathingindictmentoftheBillhascomefromcriticswhofocusonthe sweepingexemptionsitpermits.Restrictionsoninformationrelatingtosecurity, foreignpolicy,defence,lawenforcementandpublicsafetyarestandard.

TheFreedomofInformationBillexcludesCabinetpapers,includingrecordsof theCouncilofMinisters,secretariesandotherofficials,whicheffectivelyshields thewholeprocessofdecision-makingfrommandatorydisclosure.

TheBillprovidesforafeetoaccessinformation,butwithoutspecifyingwhatthe minimum and maximum amounts would be the most important, there was no mechanismtopunishdelayorrefusaltograntinformation.

Therewasnocompellingreasonfortheofficialconcernedtoprovideanswers. Instead, the law provides for two internal appeals within the Government machineryand,inaddition,blocksaccesstocivilcourts.

Itisdespitealltheseshortcomings,legislation'guaranteeingtherighttoinformationisamajorsteptowardsensuringaparticipatorydevelopmentalprocessinthe country Thelawistrulyeffective.Itwillneedtheactiveparticipationofthecommunityatlarge.ItisincludingNon-GovernmentOrganisationsandthepress.It willneedtosimplifyanddisseminatethepossibilitiesunderthenewlawtocitizens.

Thenewlawcouldbethetentativebeginningsofamoreinclusivedevelopment process, Amartya Sen, The Noble Laurate describes as a momentous engagementwiththepossibilities-offreedom.TheParliamenthadenactedtheFreedom ofInformationAct,2002.

Itwasconsideredweakandtoensuregreaterandmoreeffectiveaccesstoinformation,theneedwasfelttomakeitmoreprogressive,participatoryandmeaningful.

Itwasdecidedtorepealthe2002Actandlegislationwasproposedtoprovidean effective framework for effectuating the right of information recognized under Article19oftheConstitutionofIndia.

IntroductionoftheRighttoInformationAct–2005: The doomed Freedom of informationAct led to sustained pressure for a better NationalRighttoInformationAct.ThefirstdraftoftheRighttoInformationBill nd waspresentedtoParliamenton22 December,2004.

ItisintensedebatemorethanahundredamendmentstothedraftBillweremade th betweenDecember,2004and15 June,2005,whenthebillfinallypassed.

TheRighttoInformationAct,2005(ActNo.22of2005)isalawenactedbythe ParliamentofIndiagivingitscitizensaccesstoGovernmentrecords.

TheAct applies to all States and UnionTerritories of India, except the State of JammuandKashmir(J&K).UnderthetermsoftheAct,anypersonmayrequest informationfromapublicauthorityabodyofGovernmentorinstrumentalityof State)whichisrequiredtoreplyexpeditiouslyorwithinthirtydays.

TheActalsorequireseverypublicauthoritytocomputerisetheirrecordsforwide disseminationandtoproactivelypublishcertaincategoriesofinformationsothat the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally This th law was passed by Parliament on the date 15 June, 2005 and came fully into th forceonthedate13 October,2005.

TherighttoInformationdisclosureinIndiawashithertorestrictedbytheOfficial Secrets&Act,1923andvariousotherspeciallaws,whichthenewRTIActnow relaxes.Therighttoinformationisveryimportantactfortheglobalpurpose.The wholesocietyhasconvertedthemoderncontextfordifferentactandrules.