The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in governance. However, recent judicial interpretations and amendments through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 are diluting its scope, shifting RTI towards a “Right to Deny Information (RDI).”

About Right to Information (RTI) Act

• The RTI Act, 2005 is based on the principle that all government-held information belongs to citizens. It empowers people to request information from public authorities, fostering transparency and accountability.
• A Fundamental Right: RTI is based on the principle that all information held by the government inherently belongs to citizens and must be made accessible to ensure democratic accountability.
• Democratic Philosophy: RTI reflects the idea of democracy as rule of the people, by the people, for the people, ensuring that citizens are empowered to oversee government action.
• Democratic Empowerment: Citizens are given the right to request information, reinforcing that the government acts as a custodian and not the owner of public information.
• Principle of Transparency: The Act ensures that government functioning remains open to scrutiny, allowing citizens to engage actively in governance.
• Government as Custodian: Public records are generally accessible, except in cases of legitimate exemptions to protect national security, sovereignty, or individual privacy.
• Constitutional Safeguards: RTI is grounded in Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). Restrictions are permitted only under Article 19(2) for reasons like sovereignty, security, decency, or morality.

Evolution of RTI

• Judicial Recognition (1975-1989):
  • 1975: The Supreme Court recognized the Right to Know as part of fundamental rights.
  • 1982: The interpretation was expanded under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and Article 21 (right to life), linking RTI to freedom of expression and informed decision-making.
  • 1985: Post the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, NGOs demanded access to environmental data, initiating the debate for access to public records.
• Grassroots Movements and Early Drafts (1990-1999):
  • 1990s: Movements like Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan brought public hearings (Jan Sunwai) to expose corruption and inefficiency in government services.
  • 1996: The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) was formed to draft the RTI Bill with the Press Council of India.
  • 1997: The H.D. Shourie Committee reviewed the draft, setting the stage for legislative progress.
• Legislative Attempts and Early State RTI Laws (2000-2004):
  • 2000: The Parliamentary Standing Committee reviewed the RTI draft, and states like Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu passed state-level RTI laws.
  • 2002: The Freedom of Information Act was passed by Parliament but was never notified.
  • 2003: Supreme Court pressured the government to adopt RTI reforms.
  • 2004: The UPA government’s Common Minimum Programme promised stronger RTI legislation.
• Passage of RTI Act (2004-2005):
  • 2004: NCPRI submitted its amendments to the National Advisory Council (NAC).
  • 2005: After protests and lobbying, Parliament passed the RTI Act, which covered both Central and State Governments.
  • October 12, 2005: The RTI Act came into force, with Shahid Raza Burney’s RTI application in Pune being the first filed under the law.

Key Features of the RTI Act

• Right to Access Information: Any citizen can request information from public authorities.
• Time-Bound Disclosure: PIOs must respond within 30 days; matters concerning life or liberty must be addressed within 48 hours.
• Exemptions: Certain information related to national security, sovereignty, and personal privacy is exempt under Section 8.
• Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information: Originally, this allowed denial only if information had no link to public activity or constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless there was a larger public interest. A crucial provision ensured that information cannot be denied to citizens if it is not denied to Parliament or State Legislatures.
• Amendments via DPDP Act: Section 8(1)(j) was drastically reduced to six words: “information which relates to personal information”. The broad definition of ‘person’ under DPDP (including HUFs, companies, associations, and the State) risks turning most information into “personal” and enabling blanket denial.
• Penalties for Non-Compliance: PIOs are liable for penalties if they wrongfully deny information, but fear of DPDP penalties encourages default denial.
• Proactive Disclosure: Section 4 mandates authorities to proactively disclose key information, reducing dependence on RTI requests.

Significance of the RTI Act

• Strengthening Democracy and Citizen Empowerment: RTI enables citizens to hold the government accountable and acts as a tool for social audits.
• Fighting Corruption: It facilitates exposure of corruption, as seen in the Adarsh Housing Scam and Coalgate, by providing access to official records.
• Ensuring Transparency in Welfare Schemes: RTI tracks the implementation of public schemes, ensuring proper fund utilization and reaching intended beneficiaries.
• Upholding Fundamental Rights: Linked to Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, RTI ensures citizens can exercise fundamental rights effectively.
• Empowering Media and Whistleblowers: Journalists and whistleblowers use RTI to uncover wrongdoing.
• Impact of RDI: The amendments allowing broad denial of “personal information” weaken transparency, limit citizen monitoring, and facilitate corruption in areas like ghost employees, pension fraud, and official orders.

Present Need for RTI

• Digital Governance: With increasing digitalization of records, RTI ensures accessibility of digital and electronic documents.
• Public Accountability: RTI is crucial to monitor government projects and welfare spending, especially under large-scale schemes.
• Combating Corruption: Citizens are empowered to expose inefficiencies and illegal practices.
• Empowering Vulnerable Groups: RTI allows marginalized communities to access welfare, land rights, health, and education services.

Challenges and Constraints in the Implementation of the RTI Act

• Bureaucratic Resistance: PIOs often delay or deny information due to fear of exposure, corruption, or lack of awareness.
• Understaffing and Delays: Information Commissions face backlogs and staff shortages.
• Dilution Through Legislative Amendments: RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 and DPDP Act, 2023 reduce the autonomy of Information Commissions and broaden exemptions.
• Expansion of Exemptions: Agencies like RAW, IB, CERT-In, and limits under the Official Secrets Act restrict information access.
• Threats to RTI Activists: Activists often face harassment and intimidation.
• Skewed Gender Representation: Only 9% of commissioners have been women since 2005.
• Fear of Penalties (DPDP): PIOs risk severe fines (up to ₹250 crore) if they wrongly disclose information, incentivizing default denial.
• Public and Media Apathy: Unlike prior RTI amendments, DPDP changes have received limited attention due to being framed as “data protection.”

Way Forward

• Clarify Exemptions: Redefine personal information to prevent arbitrary denial and strengthen the public interest test.
• Enhance Proactive Disclosure: Mandate full implementation of Section 4, reducing dependence on RTI requests.
• Citizen Awareness and Mobilisation: Launch mass campaigns, especially in rural areas, to encourage active use of RTI and safeguard democratic transparency.
• Filling Vacancies and Reducing Backlogs: Timely appointments and streamlined case management can improve efficiency.
• Strengthening Proactive Disclosures: Authorities must proactively disclose critical governance information.
• Combating Bureaucratic Resistance: Mandatory training and strict penalties for denial can improve compliance.
• Ensuring Protection for Activists: Full implementation of the Whistleblower Protection Act is needed.
• Restore RTI’s Original Spirit: Amendments should clarify “personal information”, harmonize RTI with DPDP, and strengthen the public interest clause.
• Political and Citizen Engagement: Media, civil society, and citizens must pressure political parties to protect RTI and prevent it from being replaced by RDI.

Conclusion

The Right to Information (RTI) is a powerful tool for democratic accountability, ensuring transparency in governance. To restore its effectiveness, India must reinforce its commitment to transparency, protect RTI activists, and ensure the proper implementation of RTI provisions. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said, “Democracy is not just a right, it’s a responsibility.” RTI is essential for fulfilling this responsibility and ensuring a transparent, accountable government.

DOWNLOAD PDF