COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW

(Course Code- )

‘COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN

INDIA AND U.S.A’

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Dr.
Associate Professor
Law LL.M
1st semester

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

1
 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN
INDIA AND U.S.A

ABSTRACT

The Right to Information (RTI) is an essential component of democracy, functioning

as an effective instrument for fostering transparency, accountability, and social
justice. This research study compares RTI laws in India with the United States,
examining legal foundations, implementation issues, and court interpretations. The
study compares the RTI Act, 2005 in India to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
1966 in the United States, noting parallels and differences in their approaches to
providing public access to information.The research looks into critical topics such as
the balance between national security and transparency, bureaucratic resistance, and
the efficiency of court monitoring in enforcing RTI rules. The article gives insights on
the usefulness of RTI laws in promoting an informed citizenry by analysing secondary
sources such as legal texts, case law, and scholarly publications in depth. The global
perspective section provides a broader context, looking at how other democracies
have enacted comparable rules. The findings highlight the necessity of strong legal
frameworks and active judicial involvement in protecting the right to information.
The paper concludes that, while India and the United States have achieved
substantial progress in institutionalising RTI, persisting problems, such as delays in
information disclosure and resistance from public authorities, continue to prevent the
full realisation of this fundamental right. This comparative analysis adds to the larger
conversation about transparency and governance, providing vital lessons for
improving the effectiveness of RTI laws around the globe.
Keywords: Right to Information, Right to know, Freedom of Information,
Transparency, Accountability

I. INTRODUCTION
The right to information (RTI) serves as the foundation for all other rights and is
essential to democracy and progress. The right to know (RTI) is widely seen as a
fundamental human right and a weapon for battling corruption and poverty. The right
to know, by providing individuals access to information, can help to realise social
justice, human rights, accountability, openness, and sustainable growth while also
removing barriers to learning.People have always valued the rights that have been

2
granted to them, whether those rights are inherent human rights or have been granted
by statute or constitution. The rights granted to the general populace increased
together with human evolution and the development of democratic society. Human
rights are the most important thing in a democratic society, and it is made sure that
these rights are protected by the constitution. These rights, which include the freedom
of speech and equality, are the cornerstones of an open society. The right to access
information stored by public bodies has garnered significant attention recently, as has
the right to freedom of information, both of which have been maintained on a high
pedestal1.The fundamental tenet of an open and democratic government is the
freedom of information, which is predicated on the idea that citizens cannot be kept in
the dark about official actions or policies. In the UN General Assembly’s very first
session, the importance of the freedom of information as a fundamental right was
acknowledged with the adoption of resolution 59(I), which elevated the right to the
status of the most important freedom of all.2
The right to know is recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR). Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
explicitly recognises the right to information, grants people the freedom to express
themselves, and allows them to seek, receive, and share ideas and information in any
way. Access to information is a right recognised by the European Convention on
Human Rights.3
Any nation's Constitution, which defines freedom of speech and expression as an
essential component of fundamental rights and includes the right to written or
expressed information, serves as the cornerstone for all national laws. A democratic,
sovereign government that is held accountable for its actions is considered to rely
significantly on freedom of information. For the same reason, information laws
protect sensitive or confidential information that cannot be made public while also
encouraging access to publicly available information by providing a practice
environment that promotes accountability and openness in governance.After Sweden
became the first nation to establish an Ombudsman, numerous other nations,
including India, passed laws pertaining to the freedom to information.4
1
“Toby Mendel, Freedom of Information as an Internationally Protected Human Rights, available at
last https://www.article19.org/, accessed on 05-08-2024.”
2
Supra note 1.
3
Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
4
“History of Right of Access to Information”, Access Info, (17-1-2006), available
at:https://www.access-info.org/2009-07-25/history-of-right-of-access-to

3
Despite the fact that the courts have defined the right to privacy as a basic right, it
conflicts with the right to information. However, the latter takes precedence over the
former, as judged by how valuable the information is for the welfare state.
(A) Research Objectives
1. To contrast the legal systems in the USA and India that oversee the right
to information: The purpose of this study is to compare the structural differences
and parallels between the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1966 in the
United States and the RTI Act of 2005 in India. The study will examine how each
country's legal system addresses concerns such as information protection, public
access to official records, and transparency.
2. To examine the obstacles and restrictions encountered when putting RTI
laws into practice in the USA and India: This goal is to list and evaluate the
main obstacles to and restrictions on the application of the RTI and FOIA. The
study will look into things including information disclosure delays, bureaucratic
resistance, and striking a balance between national security and transparency.
3. To examine how the courts in the USA and India interpret and protect the
right to information: Examining the judicial interpretation and application of
RTI laws in both nations is the goal of this project. The study will examine how
important court decisions have shaped the definition and implementation of the
right to information, taking into account the role that the judiciary has played in
the advancement and defence of this legal right in each jurisdiction.
(B) Research Questions
The following research questions will be covered in this study:
1. What are the main similarities and differences between the legal systems in
India and the United States regarding the protection of the right to information?
2. What are the main barriers and restrictions that India and the United States face
when putting RTI laws into practice?
3. What effect have significant court rulings had on the right to information, and
how have courts in the United States and India construed and maintained this
right?
(C) Research Designs

information/#:~:text=1766%20%E2%80%93%20Sweden%20adopts%20world's%20first,government
%2C%20courts%2C%20and%20parliament.”

4
The goal of this study is to compare the Right to Information (RTI) in the United
States and India utilising a secondary research approach. This study will examine the
existing literature on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1966 in the United
States and the Right to Information Act of 2005 in India, which includes scholarly
publications, legal opinions, legislative texts, and case laws.Examining the legislative
frameworks, implementation difficulties, and judicial interpretations of RTI laws in
both nations will be the main focus. Through a comprehensive analysis of academic
literature, official government publications, and prior research, the initiative seeks to
assess how well RTI laws foster accountability and transparency. A comparative
viewpoint on the right to knowledge in these two democracies will be provided by the
research, which will also highlight significant parallels and divergences.

(D) Data Collection and Analysis

The research will gather data from secondary sources, including legal texts, academic
journals, government reports, and case laws.
To compare the legal frameworks, implementation issues, and judicial interpretations
in the two nations, a qualitative analysis will be carried out. The gathered data will be
thematically coded as part of the research process to find trends, parallels, and
discrepancies. A summary of the literature will be provided in order to assess the
efficacy of RTI laws and make comparison findings.

II. GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: A GLANCE

“The United States approved a freedom of information law in 1967, 5 and Australia,
Canada,6 and New Zealand followed in 1982.7 “In Asia, the Philippines recognised the
right to access state-held information relatively early, enacting a Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees in 1987. 8 Hong Kong approved

5
“In Australia, the Freedom of Information Act, 1982 was passed at the federal level in 1982,
applying to all “ministers, departments and public authorities” of the Commonwealth. Available
at: http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/foi.php (last visited on Aug. 09, 2024).
6
In Canada, the Access to Informaion Act allows citizens to demand records from federal bodies. The
Act came into force in 1983. Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/ (last visited on
Aug. 08, 2024).
7
In New Zealand, the relevant legislation is the Official Information Act, 1982. Available
at: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1982/0156/latest/DLMG4785.html (last visited on Aug.
20, 2024).”
8
Available at: http://alfredo.palconit.com/philippines-code-of-ethics (last visited on Aug. 21, 2024).

5
a Code on Access to Information in March 1995, 9 while Thailand's Official
Information Act went into force in December 1997. 10 South Korea’s Act on
Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies went into effect in 1998, 11 while
Japan’s Law Concerning Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs was
passed in April 2001.12”

(A) UNITED KINGDOM (U.K.)

Citizens in the United Kingdom have the legal right to access information maintained
by public institutions under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 13 As stated in
section 23, the complete exemption covers all pertinent data pertaining to security
services. This implies that the authorities are not obligated to confirm or deny the
existence of such information. Consequently, all requests for information regarding
the activities or records related to security services will be consistently turned down.
It is obvious that information must be directly related to national security and have the
ability to seriously compromise national security if it is discovered. When applying
the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ strategy, a thorough and accurate reason is required,
which demands close examination.14

(B) FRANCE
Article 21, which declares human and civil rights and asserts the right to obtain
information that is necessary for one's right to know, is likewise established by France
in its Constitution.

(C) SRI LANKA

The goals of Sri Lanka’s RTI Act are ensured by an independent commission called
the Right to Information Commission. Commercial agreements, legislative privileges,
and professional communications are the exclusions. When a public agency was asked

9
“The Code on Access to Information (the Code), Available at: ebookbrowse.com/philippines-the-
code-of-conduct-and-ethical-standards-for-public-officials-and-employees-1989-pdf-d287879859 (last
visited on Aug. 8, 2024).
10
Available at: http://wwwoic.go.th/content_eng/act.htm (last visited on Aug. 8, 2024).
11
The Act on Disclosure of Informaion by Public Agencies, 1996, Available
at: http://www.freedominfo.Org/documents/korea%20980258118__korea.doc (last visited on Aug. 8,
2012).
12
Available at: http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/gyoukan/kanri/translation4.htm (last visited on
Aug. 4, 2024).
13
Freedom of Information Act, 2000.
14
Philip Kalman v. Information Commissioner and the Department of Transport EA/2009/111.”

6
to give the necessary information, Sri Lankan Information Agency made excessive
exclusions made in the rejection of RTI requests, but it did not identify what
corrective or disciplinary steps were implemented.15

(D) BHUTAN
Bhutan’s National Assembly passed a law pertaining to information access in 2014.
Every Bhutanese person has the right to information access under Article 7 of the
Constitution. The proposed law preserves the right to refuse requests for information
through the Exempt Official Information clause.16

(E) NEPAL
Under Nepalese law, the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of
government are the places where citizens can request information. The primary
shortcoming of the law is its restriction of citizens’ access to information by making
them provide justification for their requests- possibly a needless obstacle.17

III. LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS

(A) INDIA
The ‘Right to Information Act’ has provided India with the necessary tools to
implement the fundamental right to know. It does this by outlining the procedure for
requesting information, where to submit an application, and other relevant details. In
order to make democracy function for the people, the primary goal is to empower the
populace by introducing a degree of accountability and transparency into the way
government actions are carried out. Information is defined as any record, model
contract, data material stored in electronic form, and so forth under Section 2 of the
Act.18
Any entity or authority established by a state statute, another parliamentary act, the
constitution, or a notification from the relevant government is considered a public
authority. It include both governmental and non-governmental entities that get
significant funding from the government. Inspecting work, taking notes, collecting
15
Shruti Sharma, (Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, 28 September 2021), available at:
https://www.freiheit.org/south-asia/right-information#:~:text=The%20first%20Right%20to
%20Information,an%20RTI%20law%20or%20policy, last accessed: Aug., 07, 2024.
16
Supra note 15.
17
Supra note 15.
18
Right To Information Act, 2005, §2, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).

7
certified samples of material, obtaining information about certified copies of cassettes,
films, etc. are all included in the right to information.
In order to support the right to information, public entities are required by Section 4 of
the Act to maintain records and properly catalogue and index them. 19 In accordance
with Section 6’s provisions, anyone who is interested in obtaining any such
information may submit a request to the central or public information officer, stating
the specifics they require without providing a justification.20
In addition, Section 7 mandates that the public information officer either approve or
reject the request and state whether there is a malicious intent behind any denial of
access or purposeful misrepresentation of information that has been destroyed or
requested to be obstructed in the process of providing it.21

“In Section 8, the non-open topic information is highlighted and the request must be
made within 30 days of the application.22 The grounds for denial are outlined in
Section 9,23 and Section 10 allows for the application to be rejected on the grounds of
exemption from disclosure for reasons that are in the best interests of the nation as a
whole.24 A Central Information Commissioner is to be established in accordance with
Section 12;25 a State Information Commission is to be established in accordance with
Section 15.26 If the application is denied without a valid reason, Section 20 gives the
Commission the authority to penalise the officer.27
Section 21 allows for the exclusion of subjects, 28 Section 22 is a non-obstante clause
that supersedes the Act's provisions, and Section 25 requires an annual report to be
prepared in order to implement the Act's provisions and keep the government
informed.29”

(B) U.S.A.

19
Right to Information Act, 2005, §4, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).
20
Id, §6.
21
Id, §7.
22
Id, §8.
23
Id, §9.
24
Id, §10.
25
Id, §12.
26
Id, §15.
27
Id, §20.
28
Id, §21.
29
Id, §25.

8
The FOIA definition clause applies to all federal agencies, executive branch offices,
and authority originating from and independent of the president.30 This was also
decided in the case of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. US
Department of Justice.31 Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in Forsham v. Harris32
that private organisations are exempt from FIOA even if they receive federal funding.
All documents, maps, audio recordings, films, and documentary materials are
included in the records or information.33 For these records, what constitutes a ‘search’
depends on the suitability of the methodology, which is assessed on a case-by-case
basis using the ‘reasonability test.’
In contrast to 30 days in India, the request must be resolved within 20 days, according
to Section 6(A) of the Act.34 Section 7 requires the assignment of a tracking number to
identify the request, and Subclause (B) directs the establishment of a Public Liaison to
assist the information requestor in any resolution process between the agency and the
requestor.To speed up the procedure, a ‘compelling need’ demonstration is also
offered, and requests for it can be made within 10 days. In response to more
information demands, the 'extraordinary circumstances' specified in this section have
been broadened. According to the structure, the Chief FOIA Officer is the supervisory
agency officer to whom requests and status updates are reported. They are in charge
of fostering better transparency and resolving conflicts, among other things.

IV. JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT

The judicial system plays a vital role in promoting better public governance. The
Supreme Court of India’s decisions have made major contributions to effective
governance in a variety of areas, including the environment, human rights, gender
justice, education, minorities, police reforms, elections, the restrictions on
Parliament's constituent powers to change the Constitution, and so on. The list is
limitless. The idea of data protection refers to a collection of guidelines and practices
that guarantee information privacy while also preserving data availability and
integrity. The Personal Data Protection Act, 202335 has been discussed as a means of

30
Hogan & Pickert v. National Railroad Passenger Corpn., 376 F 3d 1270 (2004), 1277.
31
Washington v. US Department of Justice, 566 F 3d 219 (2012), 222-23.
32
Forsham v. Harris, 1980 SCC OnLine US SC 43 : 63 L.Ed.2d 293 : 445 US 169 (1980), 179-80.
33
New York Times Co. v. National Aeronautics & Space Admn., 920 F 2d 1002 (1991), 1005.
34
“The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, Public Law Nos. 104-231, § 6, 110 Stat. 3048
(1966), 114-185.”
35
“The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, No. 22 , Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

9
addressing these extensive data protection laws. The “Right To Information Act,
2005”36 is a crucial instrument for preventing corruption, upholding the advancement
of social rights, transparency in the face of abuse, and holding mismanagement
accountable in a democracy like India. In order to protect the privacy of both residents
and public officials, it is concerned with the dissemination of information for
community needs and public interest. It also calls for the appointment of designated
persons to oversee the proactive disclosure of government-held information.
The previous “Freedom of Information Act of 2002”37 law was repealed. The right
to information was found to be a part of the freedom of speech and expression
protected by Article 19(1)(a)38 of the Constitution in the case of Bennett Coleman &
Co. v. Union of India.39 As a result, a democratic government cannot exist without
accountability, and the fundamental tenet of accountability is that citizens should be
informed about how democracy works so that they can fulfil their responsibilities and
transform democracy into a truly functional participatory democracy.
This was decided in the S.P. Gupta v. Union of India case.40 A popular government
without public knowledge or access to it is merely the preface to a comedy, tragedy,
or maybe both.
Comparably, the 1967 “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)”41 is a statute that allows
the public to request access to any federal or government entity in the United States of
America. Further classification of each document to the executive branches dates back
to 1946, ensuring the proper implementation of this statute.42 The Freedom of
Information Act was drafted using the “Cross The People’s Right to Know: Legal
Access to Public Records and Proceedings 1953” from the “American Society of
Newspaper Editors Committee Report.”
This likewise complies with the constitutional right to information freedom, with the
exception of nine excluded categories such as national security and law enforcement
where it falls under the right to privacy domain. The government agencies must make
the greatest amount of data and information available to the public domain in

36
Right to Informaion Act, 2005, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).
37
Freedom of Information Act, 2002, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
38
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788 : AIR 1973 SC 106.”
39
Constitution of India, Art. 19 (1)(a).
40
S. P. Gupta v. Union Of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87.
41
The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, Public Law Nos. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048 (1966),
114-185.
42
“Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)”, the U.S. National Archives and Records
Administration, https://www.archives.gov/foia.

10
accordance with US legislation. Those who are refused access to such information by
the executive authorities may also pursue various judicial and administrative remedies
for the protection of these upon non-disclosure.43

V. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Transparency is essential for combating corruption, holding the government
accountable for its activities, and exercising conscious control over the unrestricted
dissemination of information while protecting sensitive data. The core democratic
ideal, defined by the act as a working system controlled by public authorities for the
operation of public authorities, is maintained by balancing and resolving these
conflicts.
Firstly, the Indian legislation for information disclosure follows a clear division of
laws into chapters for better understanding, something the US law does not do. The
term ‘agency record’ carries a multifaceted meaning, with varying interpretations
based on the actual control of the agency falling under the definition of ‘record,’ as
established in the case of United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 44 as
detailed in the RTI, 2005. Since they cover all documents, papers, maps, videos,
audiotapes, and documentary materials, the records or information in the FOIA are in
line with the Indian RTI rules.45
Secondly, a fair request for information is one element that is absent from Indian law;
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) stipulates that one must properly determine
the data one is requesting within a ‘reasonable amount of effort.’46 Both statutes
include a very brief explanation of the information disclosure exceptions. A fiduciary
relationship between agencies has also been made clearer by some cases, as
determined in the case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay.47 The amazing outcome of
these acts, which legitimise the request for public information because both statutes
created and defined the limitations of personal information, is that privacy takes
precedence over the public interest.48 Although the President has been placed
explicitly under the purview of FIOA, an analogous position has been implicitly
43
Freedom of Informaion Act, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, https://home.treasury.gov/footer/freedom-of-information-act.
44
United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 1989 SCC OnLine US SC 142 : 16 L.Ed.2d 112
: 492 US 136 (1989), 144-45.
45
New York Times Co. v. National Aeronautics & Space Admn., 920 F 2d 1002 (1991), 1005.
46
Truitt v. Department of State, 897 F 2d 540 (1990), 544-45.
47
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
48
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr., (2013) 1 SCC 212.

11
interpreted by Indian courts.
Thirdly, Operational intelligence agency are exempt from the States’ information law,
same like under Indian law. The USA Act requires the appointment of a Chief FOIA
Officer and a Public Liaison, as opposed to a Chief Information Officer and an
Information Officer.
The USA legislation has a far more extensive tracking provision than the Indian
legislation, and it gives the request a shorter processing period (20 days) with the goal
of resolving the matter more quickly. Furthermore, private organisations are exempt
from FIOA even when they receive federal funding, which is against Indian RTI law.
The necessity of the hour position, maintained in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union
of India,49 suggests that the law should be given the utmost significance and that it
must be successful in enforcing the right to information in order to accomplish the
intended goals.

VI. RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Although the right to privacy has long been recognised as a fundamental right, the
Supreme Court of India's bench of nine judges adopted a new understanding of this
right in the Puttaswamy case.50 According to the Supreme Court, no right is
unassailable and any intrusion by a state or non-state organisation must pass the triple
test. To determine if there has been a privacy violation, the legality, need, and
balancing triple test is applicable.
First and foremost, the legality test determines if the invasion of privacy is justified.
Any law that has been passed in compliance with the Constitution and all of the
requirements of Article 13.51 Similarly, a person’s performance of a specified act or
invasion of privacy in accordance with the Information Technology Act does not
constitute a violation of that person’s right to privacy. Necessity, or objectiveity, is the
second test. Any limitation or restraint must have a justifiable goal behind it. Put
another way, we could state that there needs to be justifiable, lawful, and reasonable
goals. No right is sufficiently all-encompassing. After noticing the restriction, any
relevant authority may infringe upon the privacy of any individual.

49
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 5623.
50
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
51
Constitution of India, Art. 13.

12
(A) RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN
The Constituent Assembly includes fundamental rights in the constitution to preserve
and safeguard human dignity. Given the goal of fundamental rights, it is vital to not
only safeguard a person's dignity, but also to secure an individual's personal
information in electronic or digital form.The right to be forgotten should be regarded
as a right and included in the scope of the right to privacy, which has just been
recognised as a basic right in India. The right to be forgotten stems from a historic
judgement issued by the European Union’s Court of Justice in a case. However, the
roots of this privilege can be traced in French law, le droit il’oubli (the right of
forgetfulness), which allows a convicted criminal to object to the publishing of the
circumstances of his conviction after his sentence has been completed.
The European Union restricts this privilege to search engines. The right to be
forgotten is included in the European Union’s data protection legislation, however it
is not an absolute right and must be met under certain situations. The necessity for this
right is to ensure that an individual has control over the dissemination of his personal
or sensitive data, whether by himself or by a third party, and to restrict free speech
and expression.

VII. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The RTI Act is unlike any other law or legislation; it is not too prominent and acts as
a link between government duties and expenditures. Because once a government is
chosen, the people lose touch with it. Both rights are meant to assist citizens hold the
government responsible and transparent. The majority of problems may be remedied
by incorporating explicit definitions into law, guidelines, methodologies, and
supervision mechanisms. Due diligence would guarantee that access to information
and data protection regulations utilise the same definition of personal information.
Appropriate institutional processes and public interest tests should be developed to
balance these rights and ensure that data privacy and access to information coexist.
Public authorities should contact with applicants in a pleasant manner while keeping
the public interest in mind, and make necessary disclosures.52

52
Vratika Phogat, ‘Right to Information in Consonance with Right to Privacy’
<https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Internship%20Research%20Paper-%20Vratika%20Phogat.pdf>
accessed 10 Aug, 2024.

13
An informed citizen is better equipped to maintain the necessary watch and check on
the instruments of government by being aware of what is going on and holding the
government more accountable for what it does to dominate the populous. The scope
and application of the Freedom of Information Act vary per nation. There must be an
effective adjudicator, such as a court tribunal, a commissioner, or an ombudsman,
who has the authority and responsibility to recommend the release of documents upon
public request. Countries must exchange legislative and implementation experience.
It is a suspicion since bureaucracy and the fight for press freedom are frequently cited
as examples for local political battles and the goals of politicians who adopt these
laws. Access to information stored by a country's governing authorities, as well as
people' right to access this information, is a universal human right.
Although general law specifies that public rights always take precedence over private
rights, there is no such hard and fast rule for information laws, despite the fact that
their goals are to serve as the foundation of good governance and promote
accountability throughout the country. Although there is no standard design for
freedom of information legislation, each country tailors its instruments to a specific
goal and creates laws based on the unique problems and demands of a developing
country.

14