Right to Information Act,

2005
 Introduction
• There are seven unique elements of “governance” outlined by a World
Bank Report in the year 1992, two of which are accountability as well
as transparency & information in its pursuit of “good governance.”
• Voice and Accountability
• Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism
• Government Effectiveness
• Regulatory Quality
• Rule of Law
• Control of corruption
 Historical Background
• As a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), India was
under an international obligation to effectively guarantee the right to information as per
Article 19 of the ICCPR.
• The pre-constitutional laws:
a) The Official Secrets Act 1923
b) Section 123 of the Indian evidence Act 1872 -The Head of the Department can refuse to part
with information
• The post-constitutional laws:
c) Rule 11 of CCS Conduct Rules 1964 -No govt. servant shall communicate any official document
or information to any other person to whom he is not authorized to communicate such document or
information.
d) The Archives Policy Resolution of 22 December 1972 -All documents are classified for 30 years
and thereafter only non-confidential material is available to a restricted range of people. Even
unclassified material cannot be communicated to any one outside the government without
permission.
 Historical Background
• The Post-constitutional Scenario: The Supreme Court in many decisions, in
several cases from time to time to conceptualize that the right to information is
implicit in the constitutionally enshrined rights to freedom of speech and
expression (Article 19 (1) (a) and right to life and liberty (Article 21).
• The State of UP vs. Raj Narain, (1975) (4) SCC 428
- Justice Mathew ruled, “In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the
agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few
secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act,
everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are
entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing.”
• S P Gupta vs. Union of India (AIR) 1982 SC (149)
- The court declared - The concept of an open government is the direct emanation
from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and
expression guaranteed under article 19 (1) (a).
 Historical Background
• The Peoples Union for Civil Liberties Vs Union of India,
2000
- The court opined: The right to participate in the affairs of the country
is meaningless unless the citizens are well informed on issues in
respect of which they are called upon to express their views.
• The Union of India Vs Association for Democratic Reform,
- The court said: The right to get information in democracy is well
recognized and it is natural right flowing from the concept of
democracy.
 Historical Background
• Public outrage over the repression of information, press censorship,
and misuse of authority during the Internal Emergency of 1975—1977
led to the first political adherence to the citizen’s right to information
that emerged on the eve of the Lok Sabha Elections in 1972.
• The UPA Government’s Common Minimum Programme included a
commitment to the Right to Information, and the National Advisory
Council (NAC), which was presided over by Congress President Sonia
Gandhi until March 2006, handled a large portion of the necessary
work.
• On 15-06-2005, the Parliament passed the Right to Information Act,
2005, and ten days later the President gave his assent.
 Right to Information 2005
• What does information mean?
“Information means any material in any form including
records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press
releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers,
samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and
information relating to any private body which can be accessed
by a public authority under any other law for the time being in
force”. [S.2(t)].
What does a “Public Authority" mean?
• Any authority or body or institution of self government established or
constituted: [S.2(h)]
1. by or under the Constitution;
2. by any other law made by Parliament;
3. by any other law made by State Legislature;
4. by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government
and includes any- body owned, controlled or substantially financed
non-Government organization substantially financed directly or
indirectly by the appropriate Government.
 What information is accessible
• Right to Information means:
Right to inspect records or works.
- You can ask to inspect any work, document or record in person. You can
physically inspect the construction of a bridge or installation of a hand pump, etc,.
Right to Certified Copies
- You can get certified copies or extracts of documents or records and can even ask
to take notes from documents and records; (Section 2(j) (ii))
Right to Get Samples or Model.
- You can ask for certified samples of materials or models. You can ask for a sample
of the road being built in front of your house so that you can check whether proper
materials are being used in accordance with the contract; (Section 2(j) (iii))
Right to Get information in Electronic Form.
- You have the right to get information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes,
video cassettes or in any other electronic form or through printouts.
What are the obligations of Public Authority? [4(1)b]
• It shall publish within one hundred and twenty days of the enactment:-
a. The particulars of its organization,.
b. The powers and duties .
c. The procedure followed in its decision making process.
d. The norms set by it for the discharge of its functions,
e. A statement of the categories of the documents held .
f. A directory of its officers and employees; - the monthly remuneration received by each of
its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided.
g. The budget allocated to each of its agency. Expenditures and reports on disbursements
h. Manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the
Details of the information available to, or held by it.
i. The particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the
working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use.
j. The names, designations and other particulars of the public information officers. [S.4(l)(b)]
 Information not accessible [S.8)]
(a) Disclosure would harm national security, scientific or economic interests of India or relations with a foreign
State or lead to the incitement of an offence;
(b) Any court of law or tribunal has forbidden the information from being published;
(c) Disclosure would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
(d) The information is confidential commercial information, trade secrets or intellectual property or giving it out
would harm the competitive position of a third party;
(e) The information is available through fiduciary relationship with another person (such as a doctor/patient or
lawyer/ client relationship);
(f) The information has been given by a foreign government in confidence;
(g) Disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of a person;
(h) Disclosure would impede the process of criminal investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
(i) Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers,
although information should be released after a decision is made;
(j) The information requested is personal information, the giving out of which has nothing to do with any public
activity, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual;
(k) Disclosure would infringe the copyright of a body other than the State.
 Third Party Information
• If information sought has been supplied by third party or is
treated as confidential by that third party, the PIO shall give a
written notice to the third party within 5 days from the receipt
of the request and take its representation into consideration.
• Third party must be given a chance to make a representation
before the PIO within 10 days from the date of receipt of
such notice.
 Is partial disclosure allowed?
• Only that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from
disclosure and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information,
may be provided. [S.10]

• Who is excluded?
- Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified in the Second Schedule like IB, R&AW,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate of
Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF,
CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau, Special Branch (CID), Andaman
and Nicobar, The Crime Branch-CID-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Special Branch,
Lakshadweep Police. Agencies specified by the State Governments through a Notification will
also be excluded.
- The exclusion, however, is not absolute and these organizations have an obligation to provide
information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Further,
information relating to allegations of human rights voilations could be given but only with the
approval of the Central or State Information Commission, as the case may be. [S.24)]
Requesting a lot
of information desperately
• Dinesh K. Gohil v. All India Radio 2007,
- The Commission declared in the matter that whenever an appellant
exploits the RTI Act by requesting excessive and
unnecessary information, rendering the application itself useless,
there should be some type of remedial action taken against them.
- The Appellant left all of the 1800 odd pages of material behind while
fleeing in rage, telling the Commission that he was throwing all of the
documents here. Nothing could be a more solid indicator that he didn't
need the information and instead made the application to annoy and stress
the authorities.
- As a result, the Appellant's actions amount to a conscious disregard for the
Commission's Presiding Officer, who is conducting a judicial proceeding.
RTI filed in the name of ‘whistle blower’
• Nimmagadda v. CBT (2013) Criminal Appeal No. 728/2013
- The Supreme Court stated that the RTI Act has made it
easier to expose corrupt public officials, and whistle-blowers play a
significant part in an organization's cleaning and promotion of
openness in the governance structure. They are used to detect and
prevent fraud as a vigilance tool.
- However, there have been countless cases when
the Right to Information Act has been exploited by disgruntled
personnel inside a department or foundation who pose as “whistle-
blowers” in order to push their own objectives or exact retribution on a
competitor by tarnishing his reputation as a crook.
 Ms. Sakshi Mathur v. Ministry of Health and Family,
CIC/SG/2011/3226/17096
• The Central Information Commission, decided on the issue of disclosure of certified copy
of question booklet of AIIMS-MBBS Entrance Examination, 2011 and the corresponding
answer key. The Public Information Commissioner of AIIMS had initially refused the
disclosure inter alia on the ground that the questions and answers were the
intellectual property of AIIMS and exempted from disclosure under
the Right to Information Act.
• CIC observed that the appellant sought information which was, admittedly, the
intellectual property of AIIMS. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act was attracted only when
disclosure of information harmed the competitive position of a third party and not of
AIIMS itself. Even if AIIMS was treated as a third party, it was not a commercial
organisation that competed with other organisations.
• Further, it was not proved that the experts who prepared the question papers were in a
competitive business such that disclosure of these question papers along with their keys
could harm their competitive position. In view of the same, the Respondents' contention
that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act was
rejected.
 Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India
(RTI Cell), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1698
• All collegium discussions can't be in public domain; only
final decisions are to be uploaded on SC website.
• In a matter seeking disclosure of details of the Supreme Court
Collegium's meeting dated 12.12.2018, the bench of MR Shah
and CT Ravikumar, JJ has held that unless any Collegium
discussion culminates into a final decision, the discussion
shall not be disclosed to the public.
• As per the Resolution dated 03.10.2017, only the final resolution
and the final decision is required to be uploaded on the Supreme
Court's website.
 Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat,
(2020) 4 SCC 702
• Information held on the judicial side of the Court cannot be accessed
under the RTI Act regime-
- In an application filed by respondent under the Right to Information Act,
2005 seeking information pertaining to certain appeals decided by the
High Court along with all relevant documents and certified copies,
Respondent not being a party in any of the matters in respect of which
the information was sought.
- A full judge bench of R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.,
held that information held on the judicial side is ‘personal information'
of the litigants and courts hold it as a trustee for the litigants in order
to adjudicate upon the matter and administer justice.
Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5
SCC 481
• Information regarding the appointment SC & HC judges is ‘third party information',
compliance of S. 11 (1) RTI Act is must-
- In a batch of appeals filed by the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India,
pertaining to the right to know, right to privacy and transparency, accountability, and independence
of the judiciary.
- The appeals were filed challenging the order passed by the Central Information Commission
directing the disclosure of information relating to the appointment of certain judges to the Supreme
Court, declaration of assets in the form of their real estate or investments, held in their names and in
their spouses or any person dependent on them to the Chief Justice of the Court within a reasonable
time.
- A full bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ., N V Ramana, Dr. D Y Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjeev
Khanna, JJ., held that the information sought relating to the appointment of Supreme Court
and High Court judges is ‘third party' information and thus the process under Section 11
Right to Information Act, 2005 must be complied with.
- The Court also held that the information with respect to the judges of the Supreme Court who have
declared their assets does not constitute the ‘personal information' of the judges and thus, does not
engage the right to privacy.