Module Detail

Subject Name Political Science

Paper Name Public Policy, Governance and Indian Administration

Module Name/Title Module : Making the Governance Process Accountable: The Indian RTI Act

Pre-requisites

This module discusses in detail about the accountability. How the governance pr
Objectives be make accountable. What are the available mechanisms to make the governan
accountable in India.

Accountability, Governance, RTI Act, Democracy, Development

Keywords

Role Name Affiliation

Prof. Ashutosh Kumar Department of Political Science, Panjab Univ

Principal Investigator

Prof. Amit Prakash

Paper Coordinator Centre for Law and Governance, SSS, J
Nehru University, New Delhi.

Prof. Ramanjit Kaur Johal Department of Public Administration, P

University, Chandigarh.

Content Writer/Author (CW) Rukmani JNU

 Prof. Amit Prakash
Content Reviewer (CR) Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New De

Prof. Amit Prakash

Language Editor (LE) Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New De

Making the Governance Process Accountable:

The Indian RTI Act

Objectives of the Module:

 How the governance process can be made accountable?

 What are the mechanisms available in India for making the process accountable?

Introduction:

Accountability is considered as an important aspect of democracy. It is defined as an ability of

citizens to put effective pressure on officials who deviate from the expressed wishes of a
majority among them (Mookherjee: 2010). Accountability is evaluating the nature of governance
in terms of outcomes rather than processes. In Democracy, Accountability and Representation,
Przeworski and others have defined government accountability as “Government are
‘accountable’ if citizens can discern representative from unrepresentative government and can
sanction them appropriately, retaining in office those who perform well and ousting from office
those who do not” (Przeworski: 1999). A lack of accountability may be said to occur if
government policies or their implementation exhibit systematic bias in favour of some groups at
the expense of others, which cannot be justified by their demographic size, intensity of need, or
special constitutional status accorded on historical grounds.
The extent to which a government remains accountable depends upon three factors (a) the
personal objectives of government officials; (b) perceptions of citizens or other watchdog
agencies concerning their performance; and (c) mechanisms by which citizens or watchdog
agencies can exert pressure or sanction or remove governments they perceive as not accountable,
combined with the willingness of citizens to do so (Mookherjee: 2010).

Various mechanisms such as decentralization, informational transparency, land reforms, etc,

have been adopted by various countries to promote accountability.

In case of India, which is considered to be a welfare state and the largest democracy in the world,
it is a well known fact that despite six decades of investment in the welfare and development
programs, the challenges like poverty, corruption etc persist. Scholars like Vikas Jha (2009) and
Palanithurai (2009) points out that the reason behind the continued existence of challenges like
economic backwardness; regional disparity, corruption etc is due to the failure of the governance
mechanisms and lack of accountability and transparency. Therefore, what we need is a
transparent and accountable governance system which can protect the people who are excluded
from the benefits of the various developmental programmes meant for them.

It has been argued that the right to information is a revolutionary initiative towards recuperating
the governance system in India because public access to information instils spirit of
accountability and transparency in governance.

This chapter begins by describing the evolution of the right to information and how it obtained
its constitutional status. The following section explains the Right to Information Act 2005 and its
salient provisions. The third section deals with the shortcomings of the Act. Final section looks
at the obstacles in the process of implementing the right to information Act, 2005 before
concluding the chapter.

Section 1: The Evolution of Right to Information and its Journey for Constitutional Status:

The Evolution of Right to Information:

Over the past few years, the Right to Information has gained increasing prominence both in the
Human Rights and the democratic discourse. Since a democratic government should be sensitive
to the public opinion, it is necessary that information must be made available by it to the people.
At the International level, Right to Information and its aspects find articulation as a human right
in most important basic human rights documents, namely, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At regional levels, there are numerous other human
rights documents, which include this fundamental right, for example, the European Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the American Convention on
Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, etc. The Commonwealth has
also formulated principles on freedom of information (Chadah: 2006).

The Right to Information exists in about 70 countries either in the Constitution or through
specific laws. Another thirty countries are in process of enacting such legislation. Although
freedom of information laws have been existing since 1766, when Sweden passed its Freedom of
the Press Act. The last ten years have seen an unprecedented number of states striving to become
more transparent and more prompt in legislating on the access to information. Nearly all the
Central and Eastern European countries have adopted laws as part of their democratic transitions.
Many countries in Southern and Central Africa are following South Africa’s lead, for
formulating Freedom of Information laws (Chadah: 2006).

Finland also has a law on the Right to Information since 1951 on publicity of documents. France
too has accepted the principle of citizen’s access to information. The accountability of public
servant is a constitutional right in it. Norway and Denmark have also statutorized public access
to official information. Norway has the Freedom of Information Act of 1970 besides the
constitutional right to access the public document. Denmark has the access to Public
Administration Files Act, 1985.

In USA, the foundation of openness and Right to Information lay in the constitutional
fundamental right of Free speech. The statutory framework for it is provided in the Freedom of
Information Act, in 1966 and its statutory cousins, the Privacy Act, 1974 and the Sunshine Act,
1976.
In UK, the Freedom of Information Act was passed on November 30, 2000. It gives a general
right to public of access to all types of ‘recorded information held by public authorities, sets out
exemption from that general right, and places a number of obligations on public authorities. The
Act applies only to public authorities and to private entities.

In Asia, the Philippines recognize the right to access information held by the state relatively
early, passing a code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees in 1987.
A code on access to information was adopted in Hong Kong in March 1995. In Thailand, the
official Information Act came into effect in December 1997. Pakistan promulgated the Freedom
of Information Ordinance in 2002. Nepal was the second country in the region after India, to
introduce the full fledged Right to Information in the form of Right to Information Act in July
2007, though the Act not effectively implemented. Bangladesh recently in 2009 notified Right to
Information Act in the Gazette (Dhaka: 2010).

An insight into the international scenario reveals that there has been a trend from administrative
practice of secrecy to freedom of information all over. The objectives behind these enactments
are to ensure transparency, openness and fairness in the functioning of government.

In case of India, various Indian laws provide for the right to access information in specific
contexts. Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requires public officials to provide copies
of public documents to anyone who has the right to inspect them. Similarly, the Factories Act,
1948, provides for compulsory disclosure of information to factory workers “regarding dangers
including health hazards and measures to overcome such hazards”, arising from their exposure to
dangerous materials. But regardless of these provisions the system of governance in India has
traditionally been opaque, with the state retaining the colonial Official Secrets Act and
continuing to operate in secrecy at the administrative level. The Official Secrets Act enacted in
1923 still retains its original form, apart from some minor amendments in 1967.

At the outset, it may be said that, there was no specific Right to Information in the Constitution
of India. The Right to Information has been read with the fundamental rights: the right to
Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1a)) and the Right to Life and Liberty (Article
21) contained in the Chapter 3 of the Constitution.

Right to Information’s journey for Constitutional Status:

In India, the legal position with regard to Right to Information has developed through several
Supreme Court decisions given in the context of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression,
which has been said to be the obverse side of the Right to Know and one cannot be exercised
without the other.

The development of the Right to Information as a part of the constitutional law of the country
started with the petition of the Press to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of certain logical
implications of the right to freedom of speech and expression such as challenging government
orders for control of news print, bans on distribution of papers, etc in the case of Bennett
Coleman and Co. vs Union of India, 1973 (AIR 1973: SC 60). In this case the petitioners, a
publishing house bringing out one of the leading daily’s, challenged the government’s newsprint
policy which put restriction on acquisition, sale and consumption of news print. This was
challenged as restricting the petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expression. The court
struck down the news print control order saying that it directly affected the petitioner’s right to
freely publish and circulate their paper. In that, it violated their right to freedom of speech and
expression.

Similarly, in State of UP vs Raj Narian, 1975 (4 SCC 428) the Supreme Court said, “while there
are overwhelming arguments for giving to the Executive the power to determine what matters
may prejudice public security, those arguments give no sanction to giving the Executive
exclusive power to determine what matters may prejudice the public interest.

The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta vs Union of India, 1982 (AIR 1982: SC 149) decided by
Seven-judged bench, added a fresh, liberal dimension to the need of disclosure in matters relating
to public affairs. In the instant case it was held that in regard to the functioning of government,
disclosure of information must be the ordinary rule while secrecy must be an exception,
justifiable only when it is demanded by the requirement of public interest. It was conceded that
there are certain classes of documents which are necessarily required to be protected such as
Cabinet Minutes, Documents concerning the national safety, documents which affect diplomatic
relations or relate to state secrets of the highest importance and the like in respect of which court
would ordinarily uphold government’s claim of privilege. However, even these documents have
to be tested against the basic guiding principle, which is that wherever it is clearly contrary to the
public interest for a document to be disclosed, and then alone it is in law immune from
disclosure.

In Dinesh Trivedi vs. Union of India, 1997 the Supreme Court while making a reference to the
State of U.P. vs. Raj Narian and S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India held that in modern constitutional
democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the
government which, having been elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies of
governance aimed at their welfare. However, like all other rights, even this right has recognized
limitations; it is by no means, absolute.

The Right to Information was further elevated by the Supreme Court to the status of a human
right, necessary for making governance transparent and accountable in the People’s Union for
Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, 2004 case (2 SCC 476). It held that people have every right to
know the background of the contesting candidates for assembly and parliament. It also
emphasized that governance must be participatory.

The overall impact of the above mentioned decisions has been to establish clearly that the
people’s right to know is embedded in the provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights in the
constitution.

People’s struggle for Right to Information:

Objections to the Official Secrets Act have been raised ever since 1948 but it was only in 1977
that a Working Group was formed by the Janata Party government to look into the possibilities
of amending the Official Secrets Act. It was another thing that Working Group did not
recommend any changes.

In 1989, V.P. Singh’s National Front Government came to power and declared its decision to
make Right to Information a fundamental right. A committee was set up by the government
which recommended the limiting the areas where government information could be hidden and
opening up of all other spheres of information. Unfortunately, no legislation was followed from
the recommendations by the committee.

Finally, the focus of citizens’ groups shifted from demanding merely an amendment to the
Official Secrets Act, to its replacement by a comprehensive legislation towards the Right to
Information. The first initiative for the Right to Information was taken by a mass based
Organization called the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in early nineties in a very
backward region of Rajasthan – Bhim Tehsil. This agitation for transparency was started by
asking for copies of bills and vouchers and names of persons who have been paid wages
mentioned in the muster rolls for the construction of school, dispensaries, small dams and
community centers in the Block Development and Panchayat Officer Office.

MKSS organized several Jan Sunwai (People’s Hearing), between December 1994 and April
1995, in Rajasthan. This grassroots movement spread very fast to other areas of Rajasthan and to
other States establishing firmly that information is power and people should have the right to
official information (Roy et al.: 2008; Verma: 2010).

Subsequently, the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) formed in the
late 1990s became a broad based platform for action. As the campaign gathered momentum, it
became clear that the right to information had to be legally enforceable. It was demanded that
information that cannot be denied to Parliament or State Legislatures cannot be denied to a
citizen either (Chakarbarti: 2010).

In 1996, Justice P.B. Sawant, the Chairman of the Press Council of India, drafted the bill keeping
in view the dire need of the day and the observations made by eminent persons that in a
democracy, it is the people who are the masters and those utilizing public resources and
exercising public power are their agents. The Drafts Bill was submitted to the Government of
India on 1996.

In this bill, Information was defined as any fact relating to the affairs of the public body and
included any of the records relating to its affairs. The right to information included inspection,
taking notes and extracts and receiving certified copies of the documents. Significantly, the term
‘public body’ included not only the state as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India for
the purposes of enforcing Fundamental Rights. It also incorporated all undertakings and non-
statutory authorities, and most significantly a company, corporation, society, trust, firm or a co-
operative society, owned or controlled by private individuals and institutions whose activities
affect the public interest. In effect, both the corporate sector and the NGOs were sought to be
brought under the purview of this proposed legislation (Chadah: 2006).
Next step came forward in the form of the Consumer Education Research Council draft, by far
the most detailed proposed freedom of information legislation in India. In line with international
standards, it gave the right to information to anyone, except ‘alien enemies’, whether or not they
were citizens. The draft provided for the outright repeal of the Official Secret Act. This draft did
not make it through Parliament either.

Finally in 1997, a Conference of Chief Ministers resolved that the central and state governments
would work together on transparency and the right to information. Following this, the Centre
agreed to take immediate steps, in consultation with the states, to introduce freedom of
information legislation, along with amendments to the Official Secret Act and the Indian
Evidence Act, before the end of 1997.

In 1997, two states – Tamil Nadu and Goa – passed the right to information legislation. Keeping
in view the burning problem, the Department of Personnel, Government of India, constituted a
Working Group on January 2, 1997 under the chairmanship of bureaucrat and consumer activist
H.D.Shourie to draft a legislation for consideration of government. The Working group on the
‘Right to Information and promotion of open and transparent government’ submitted its
comprehensive and detailed report and the draft bill on Freedom of Information on 24 May 1997.
According to its report, not only the Central and the State ministries, but also public sector
undertakings, municipal bodies and panchayats and other bodies substantially funded by
government, would come within the purview of the Act.

The Press council of India, the Press Institute of India, the NCPRI and the Forum for right to
information unanimously submitted the resolution on February 20, 1998 to Government of India
for amending the proposed bill.

The BJP led National Democratic Alliance reworked on the Shourie’s draft to finalize the
Freedom of Information Bill 2000. It was introduced in the Loksabha on July 25, 2000.
However, after the president’s signature this Act could not be notified in the government
Gazette. This freedom of Information Bill included some provisions that were not in the
Shourie’s draft, such as the requirement that urgent request in cases involving life and liberty
should get a response within 48 hours.
Inspired and encouraged by the exercise taken up by the Press Council of India, Working Group
and the Central Government and under popular pressure the state governments also started
preparing draft legislation on right to information. Before the Freedom of Information Bill 2000,
introduced in the Loksabha on 25 July 2000, a number of states had already introduced the Bill
on RTI (Dhaka: 2010).

Tamil Nadu was the first to introduce the RTI Act on 17 April 1996 modelled on a draft
legislation recommended by the Press Council of India. Goa was the second state to enact the
RTI legislation in 1997. Maharashtra followed Tamil Nadu and Goa. Delhi also passed Delhi
RTI Act in 2001 modelled it on the Goa Act. Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir also enacted the
RTI Act in the year 2000 and 2004 respectively.

Section 2: Right to Information and Its Provisions:

RTI Act 2005:

Ultimately, the Parliament of India passed legislation on Right to Information in 2005. It is

landmark legislation in Indian context. Right to Information Act 2005 was passed by both the
houses in the summer session of the Parliament and received assent of President on June 15,
2005. Around 150 amendments were introduced in the original draft. The Act replaces relatively
weak and ineffective legislation, the freedom of Information Act 2002. The Right to Information
Act confers on all citizens the right to seek information and makes it a duty of public authorities
to disseminate the same for better governance and accountability. It covers the central and state
governments, panchayati raj institutions, local bodies, and recipients of government grants but
does not apply to the intelligence and security organizations except if the information relates to
the allegation of corruption.

It further points out the democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency in
information to contain corruption and to hold government and their instrumentalities accountable
to the governed.
Salient features of the Right to Information, 20051:

 It applies to ‘Public Authorities’ established or constituted by or under the Constitution;

by any law made by the appropriate government or , any other body owned, controlled,
or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government, and
includes Non Government Organizations, Substantially financed by the government.
 The ambit covers even the private bodies and their information can be accessed through
the controlling public authority.
 The Act provides that information of the Third party can be accessed after giving ten
days notice to the third party.
 The Act lays down the machinery for the grant of access to information. The Public
Authorities are required to designate Public Information Officers and Assistant.
 A time limit has been prescribed for compliance with requests for information under the
Act, viz. 30 days for normal information; 40 days for third party information; life and
liberty information in 48th hours and information relating to human rights violation in 45
days.
 The Act provides that in case PIO rejects the application, he/she is bound to give reasons
of such rejection; the period within which can appeal against such rejection may be
referred as well as the particulars of the appellate authority.
 The Act excludes the time taken for calculation and intimation of fees from the time
frame.
 The Act prescribes for reasonable fee for providing information. Also, no fee to be
charged from persons who are below poverty line. Further, information to be provided
free of charge where the response time is not adhered to.
 Certain categories of information have been exempted from disclosure. The categories,
by way of illustration, include, information likely to affect security of the State, detection
and investigation of offences, public order, conduct of international relations and cabinet
papers.
 The Act contains a provision for reveal of certain information, which is otherwise,
exempted from disclosure on completion of 20 years after the incident.

1
This section is completely based on the reading of the Right to Information Act 2005.
  The Act also incorporates the principle of severability.
 Envisages creation of an independent non-judicial machinery, viz., Central Information
Commission and State Information Commissions compromising a Chief Information
Commissioner and Information Commissioner to decide 2nd stage appeals. At the same
time, there is no hierarchy of Commissions.
 The Commissions while inquiring into any matter has the same powers are as vested in a
civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure.
 The Act provides a two-tier Appeallate Forum. First appeal to departmental officer
senior to the Public Information Officer. The second appeal to be made to the
Commission.
 On a request for information being refused , the applicant can prefer an appeal to the
prescribed authority within 30 days of the decision; the time limit for disposal of appeal
being also 30 days extendable to 45 days. The second appeal can be made within 90 days
of the decision of the first appellate authority.
 In case of grievance at PIO level, there is a provision for making a compliant directly to
the Commission.
 The decisions of the Commission are binding.
 The jurisdiction of subordinate courts has been barred.
 Under the provision of the Act CIC/SIC can impose a penalty of Rs.250 per day on PIO.
This penalty can go upto a maximum of Rs.25000.
 There is a provision of disciplinary action against the PIO for any contravention of the
Act. A disciplinary action can be recommended as per the service rules applicable to the
PIO.
 Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions to monitor the
implementation of the Act and prepare an Annual Report to be laid before
Parliament/State Legislature.
 The Act repeals the Freedom of Information Act, 2002.

Section 3: Shortcomings in the Right to Information Act 2005:

In spite of being very exhaustive and with all its positive features, the RTI Act suffers from some
weaknesses which has impeded its uniform and effective implementation during the last eight
years.

The first drawback of the Act is that it is not clear about the role of First Appellate Authority.
The Section 19(1) provides for the designation of the appellate authority at the Public Authority
level who is an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer (PIO). However the Act is
silent about the powers and functions of the first appellate authority. As a result, there is
confusion about the role and responsibility of the first appellate authorities. Moreover, the Act
does not in a way; make the first appeal mandatory when it says that any person aggrieved by the
decision of the PIO may prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to him/her. In
general perception, an applicant is supposed to appeal with the information commission only
after he/she has exhausted all options.

Another paradox that arises from this confusion is about the status of the First Appellate
authority vis-a-vis the information commissioner. Since both are appellate authorities under the
Act, the Information Commission cannot summon and force the attendance of the first Appellate
Authority and compel him to give evidence and produce the documents (Dhaka: 2010).

Second, the Act is not clear about the procedure of appeal. Section 19(9) of the Act states that the
information commission shall give notice of its decision, including right to appeal to the
complainant and the public authority. It does not make clear whether the right to appeal can be
exercised at the commission level itself (Dhaka: 2010).

Third, the grounds of the complaint under Section 18 and for an appeal under section 19 are
overlapping. Three clauses of Section18(1) i.e. Clause (b) relating to refusal of access to
information; clause (c) relating to no response to the request for information within the stipulated
time; and clause (d) relating to giving incomplete, misleading or false information may be
deleted as these grounds are basically for exercising appellate powers under section 19 (Naib:
2011).

Fourth, unlike the time limit for the First Appellate Authority for giving decisions on appeals,
the Act does not provide for any time limit for Information Commissions to decide the appeal.
Due to the absence of this provision, Information Commissions very often do not give the
decisions on time (Yashada: 2008).

Fifth, while interpreting the provisions of the Act, the phrase ‘public interest’ has been used
liberally but not defined anywhere in the Act. It is clear from Section 8 that most or all
exemption provisions should pass through a public interest balancing test which require
disclosure if the public interest consideration favouring disclosure outweigh those favouring non-
disclosure.

This calls not only for defining public interest but also devising methods and techniques of
measuring the importance of the public interest objectively. Unless it is done, the Public
Information Officers may use public interest rider arbitrarily to disclose or withhold information
selectively. Given an all pervading spectrum of the public interest, it would be useful if the
phrase is contextually defined in the Act with an explanatory note (Dhaka: 2010).

Section 4: Obstacles in the Process of Implementing the Act:

Unlike many other countries (for e.g. UK) which took several years to operationalize the Act
post the enactment, India took only a few months to bring it into force. The time taken was not
sufficient to change the mindset of the people in Government, create infrastructure, develop new
processes and build capacity to deliver information under this Act. This has led to
implementation issues. Some of the issues which hinders the proper implementation of the Act
are as follows:

First obstacle in the process of implementation of the Act is low public awareness. The Section
26 of the Act states that “the appropriate Government may develop and organize educational
programmes to advance the understanding of the public, especially disadvantaged communities,
regarding how to exercise the rights contemplated under the Act”. However, various studies
shows that while on one hand the Nodal Departments have not undertaken any substantial steps
to promote the RTI Act, on the other hand, some SICs like SIC- Orissa and SIC Andhra Pradesh
have been promoting the usage of the Act through seminars and discussions at district level. The
efforts made by appropriate Governments and Public Authorities have been restricted to
publishing of rules and FAQs on websites. These efforts have not been helpful in generating
mass awareness of the RTI Act. As compared to RTI Act the common citizens (and
disadvantaged communities) are significantly more aware of other Government schemes focused
on socio-economic development. It was further observed that awareness level is low among the
disadvantaged communities such as women, schedule caste, schedule tribe and rural population
(Pricewaterhouse Coopers).

Second impediment in the implementation process of the Act is the constraints faced by the
citizens in filling applications. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, PIOs are required to provide
reasonable assistance to the applicant in drafting and submission of the application. Similarly,
Under Section 26 of the RTI Act, the appropriate Government is expected to publish and
distribute user guides (within eighteen months of enactment of the Act) for information seekers.
However, it has been observed that Nodal Departments have not published these guides (Naib:
2011).

Third hurdle is the inconvenient payment channels for submission of application fees. While it is
desirable for the State Government to have various channels for fee collection; however, in the
absence of clear guidelines and instructions, Public Authorities have chosen a subset of the
allowed payment channels. It is observed that majority of Public Information Officers used cash
and demand drafts, which causes inconvenience to citizens, especially in rural areas. Further,
collection of fee through cash necessitates the presence of the applicant in the State, whereas the
Act does not provide for any such restriction (Naib: 2011).

Fourth obstacle is that competent authorities are unable to provide information within 30 days.
As per the Act, the information has to be provided within the stipulated time. However, it is
argued by the Public Information Officers that they are challenged to provide the information
within the stipulated time due to inadequate record management procedures with the Public
Authorities. It is a known fact that the record keeping process within the Government is a big
challenge. This situation is further aggravated due to non-availability of trained PIOs and the
enabling infrastructure (computers, scanners, internet connectivity, photocopiers etc.). Public
Authorities need to meet the requirements of the RTI Act to review their current record keeping
procedures and other constraints and plan out the resources.

Fifth hindrance in the implementation of the Act is the obsolete record management. Ineffective
record management system and collection of information from field offices is leading to delay in
processing of RTI applications. As per Section 4(1a) of the Act, a Public Authority needs “to
maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates the
Right to Information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be
computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised
and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such
records is facilitated”. Findings of various studies indicated that record management system
plays a vital role in timely disposal of a RTI application. Yet, 38% of the PIOs cited record
management system as a reason for delay in processing RTI requests. Further 79% of PIOs cited
collection of information from field offices as a cause of delay. These findings point towards a
weak record management system being followed where critical field level information is not
available at the higher levels of hierarchy (Pricewaterhouse Coopers).

Conclusion:

To conclude one can say that the passage of Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Indian
Parliament marks a watershed development in the democratic governance of the country in
general and the grassroots/ local democratic governance in particular. In fact, as far as the
importance of RTI Act for the local governance of the country is concerned, it cannot be ruled
out that its enactment in 2005 becomes ‘the significant enactment’, after the 73rd Amendment
Act in 1992. However, the impediments which are obstructing the effective implementation of
Act, concludes that the problems lies within the public officials as well with common citizens.
Both are still not properly aware about the rules and basic features of the Act. Moreover,
irregularities or variations among the states during the implementation of the Act, certainly
decreases its efficacy and significance.

But one also has to keep in mind that the promise of the act to enable citizens to have access to
information with a focus on promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public
authorities needs to be examined in relation to the material conditions which permit or prohibit
the exercise of rights.