Detailed Analysis of India's Right to Information Act, 2005
Introduction:
The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), is an Indian legislation aimed at enhancing transparency
and accountability in government operations. It grants citizens the power to request information
from public authorities, serving as a pivotal tool in fostering good governance and combating
corruption. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the RTI Act, its key sections, legal
provisions, and a prominent case study.
Background:
Before the RTI Act's enactment, India lacked a law mandating the disclosure of information by public
authorities. The need for a right to information law gained traction in the late 1990s. In 2002, a
committee was formed to draft the legislation, and the RTI Act was passed by the Indian Parliament
in 2005, coming into effect on October 12, 2005.
Scope and Applicability:
The RTI Act is applicable across all Indian states and union territories, with the exception of Jammu
and Kashmir, which previously had its own RTI Act. The Act encompasses public authorities, such as
government departments, ministries, public sector undertakings, and local bodies, which receive
substantial government financing. Private entities are not subject to the Act.
Salient Features:
The RTI Act is marked by several notable features:
1. Right to Information: It grants citizens the right to access information held by public authorities,
subject to specific exemptions.
2. Time-bound Responses: Public authorities must respond to RTI requests within 30 days,
extendable by another 30 days in certain cases.
3. Payment of Fees: Public authorities can charge a nominal fee for providing information, except for
matters concerning life or liberty.
4. Exemptions: The Act permits the denial of information in cases that could jeopardize national
security, infringe on individual privacy, and more.
5. Appeals: A three-tiered appeals system allows citizens to challenge public authorities' decisions.
Appeals can be made to designated officers, the Information Commission, and the High Court.
6. Protection of Whistleblowers: The Act safeguards individuals who disclose information in the
public interest.
7. Procedure for Seeking Information: The application process involves a written request to the
public authority, indicating the information sought and paying the prescribed fee. The authority
must respond within 30 days, either by providing the information or stating the reasons for denial.
Exemptions:
The RTI Act specifies various exemptions where information may be denied, such as matters related
to national security, intelligence activities, investigations, or personal privacy.
Penalties:
The Act imposes penalties on public officials for non-compliance, including:
- Refusal to receive an RTI application
- Refusal to provide information
- Providing misleading or false information
- Destruction of information
- Retaliation against a whistleblower
A Comprehensive Analysis of Key Sections:
1. **Section 2: Definitions** - Provides definitions for terms used in the Act.
2. **Section 3: Right to Information** - Grants every citizen the right to access information held by
public authorities, with certain exemptions.
3. **Section 4: Obligations of Public Authorities** - Mandates that public authorities maintain
records, proactively publish information, and provide information to citizens. It also establishes
Public Information Officers (PIOs) and Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs).
4. **Section 5: Designation of Public Information Officers** - Ensures the appointment of PIOs and
APIOs and makes their contact information public.
5. **Section 6: Request for Information** - Describes the procedure for making an information
request, specifying requirements and the 30-day response timeline.
6. **Section 7: Disposal of Request** - Details how PIOs or APIOs must handle RTI requests, either
by providing information, denying it, or transferring the request.
7. **Section 8: Exemption from Disclosure of Information** - Outlines exemptions, such as matters
affecting national security or individual privacy.
8. **Section 9: Grounds for Rejection to Access** - Specifies grounds for rejecting a request, such as
information already in the public domain.
9. **Section 10: Severability** - Addresses the provision for the release of non-exempted
information even if a part of it is exempted.
10. **Section 11: Third Party Information** - Explains how information related to third parties
should be handled, ensuring notice and an opportunity to represent for the third party.
11. **Section 12: Appeal** - Outlines the appeal process, from designated officers to the
Information Commission and the High Court.
12. **Section 13: Penalty** - Discusses penalties for non-compliance by public officials.
13. **Section 14: Direction for Disclosures** - Gives the Information Commission the authority to
issue directions for information disclosure and to order compensation to applicants.
14. **Section 15: Constitution of Central Information Commission** - Describes the establishment
of the Central Information Commission and appointments of the Chief Information Commissioner
and Information Commissioners.
15. **Section 16: Constitution of State Information Commission** - Details the creation of the State
Information Commission and the appointments of State Chief Information Commissioners and
Information Commissioners.
16. **Section 17: Term of Office and Conditions of Service** - Specifies the terms and conditions of
service for Information Commissioners at both central and state levels.
17. **Section 18: Removal of Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner** -
Covers the removal process for these officials in case of misconduct.
18. **Section 19: Appeal and Hearing** - Explains the appeal process, including summoning
witnesses, examining documents, and hearing evidence.
19. **Section 20: Proceedings of Commission** - Describes the procedures the Information
Commission follows during hearings and decision-making.
20. **Section 21: Procedure with Respect to Information** - Outlines the procedures for ordering
the disclosure of information.
21. **Section 22: Protection of Action Taken in Good Faith** - Protects public officials from legal
action if they act in good faith.
22. **Section 23: Bar on Jurisdiction of Courts** - Limits court jurisdiction regarding matters covered
by the Act.
23. **Section 24: Act to Have Overriding Effect** - Establishes the overriding effect of the Act over
other laws.
24. **Section 25: Monitoring and Reporting** - Requires monitoring and reporting of Act
implementation by the Central and State Governments.
25. **Section 26: Appropriate Government to Prepare Reports** - Mandates the preparation of
annual reports on Act implementation by the appropriate government.
26. **Section 27: Power to Make Rules** - Grants the power to create rules for implementing the
Act.
27. **Section 28: Power to Remove Difficulties** - Allows the Central Government to address
difficulties in Act implementation.
28. **Section 29: Repeal and Saving** - Repeals the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, while saving
any actions taken under that Act.
The Satyendra Dubey Case:
A prominent case illustrating the significance of whistleblower protection and governance
transparency is the Satyendra Dubey case. Dubey, a young engineer at the National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI), uncovered corruption and compromised construction quality during the
Golden Quadrilateral highway project. After his superiors failed to take action, he wrote to then-
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Tragically, the letter was forwarded to the NHAI, revealing Dubey's identity to the corrupt
contractors, ultimately leading to his murder in 2003. This case exposed the need for strong
whistleblower protection laws and emphasized the role of the RTI Act in promoting transparency
and accountability in governance. Notably, Dubey himself used the RTI Act to access information
that revealed corruption.
Conclusion:
The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a comprehensive Indian law designed to enhance transparency
and accountability in government operations. It empowers citizens to access information and holds
public authorities accountable for their actions. The Act has played a pivotal role in promoting
transparency and accountability in Indian governance, as demonstrated by the Satyendra Dubey
case, which underscores the importance of whistleblower protection and governance transparency.
Bibliography:
www.legalmantra.net
