Impact of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in

Institutionalizing Transparency and Accountability in

Indian Governance

Submitted By- Dipali Singh

B.A.LL.B IV semester

School of law, FIMT.

1
 CONTENTS

 Acknowledgement…………………………………………………... 3
 Abstract……………………………………………………………… 4
 Link between Transparency and Accountability………..…………... 5
 The Right to Information Act………………………………………...6
 Right to Information and Good Governance……….………………..12
 The hub of Transparency……………………………………………..14
 Right to Privacy and RTI…………………………………………..…16
 RTI and Judiciary……………………………………………………..21
 Conclusion……………………………………………………………23

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author owes deep gratitude to Hon’ble Information Commissioner, Shri Suresh
Chandra who, with his guidance and support, allowed me to witness the practical
application of the RTI Act, 2005 through hearings and enhanced discussions. The
author is also extremely grateful to the Legal Consultants- Ms. Churchi Mandakani
and Mr. Sonu Anand who furthered my understanding of RTI Act and clarified
every important facet of the Act and the procedure there under. I extend my special
gratitude to the registry staff for their support and cooperation. Each member of the
team not only provided a thoughtful and insightful working of the commission but
also the right ambience to work and learn. The time spent at CIC as an intern
provided a wealth of experience and learning, which the author feels privileged to
have and shall be indebted to all who have helped during the internship.

3
Abstract-

Transparency and accountability in administration is the sine qua non of participatory

democracy. Free flow of information is essential for the health of a democratic society. The
Right to Information Act became a pioneer tool to the citizens of India for promoting, protecting
and defending their Right to know. It came as a march which broke the unrevealed silence. India
being a huge democracy needs participation from every front to implement the objective of good
governance and The Right to Information Act acts as an index to measure the growth,
development and governance of a country which helped the citizens to participate in any social,
political or economical debate concerning the issues or interest of the country. As said by the
Thomas Jefferson “Information is the currency of democracy,” For a society to develop into a
developed democracy, freedom of information is must and curiosity should be instilled in the
minds of citizen and this type of informed citizenry is only possible by broad access of
information about government operations.

Keywords: Right to Information, Transparency, Accountability, Democracy, Governance.

4
Link between Transparency and Accountability

To understand the nature and implementation of the Act, Firstly one has to understand what
exactly is transparency, accountability and the link between them. Transparency and
accountability are reciprocally supporting. Transparency involves ready access to reliable,
comprehensive, timely, understandable, and internationally comparable information on
government activities and accountability encapsulates three main elements; answerability- the
need for justification of actions; enforcement- the sanction that could be imposed if the action is
found to be unsatisfactory; and responsiveness - the ability of those held accountable to respond
to the demands made. Transparency of information is essential for demanding accountability.
Mendel has listed the international and comparative standards that should underpin freedom of
information legislation-

Principle 1- Maximum disclosure

Principle 2- Obligation to publish

Principle 3- Promotion of Open Government

Principle 4- Limited Scope of Exceptions which should be clearly and narrowly drawn and
subject to strict “harm” and “public interest” test.

Principle 5- Requests for information should be processed rapidly and fairly and an independent
review of any refusal should be available.

Principle 6- Individuals should not be deterred from making requests for information by
excessive costs.

Principle 7- Meetings of public bodies should be open to the public.

Principle 8.-Disclosure takes Precedence.

Principle 9.-Protection for Whistleblowers is required.

Making government more open and transparent is a process involving three important areas of
focus-

5
Right to information laws – this establishes the constitutional/legal right for a citizen to access
the information that they want.

Proactive transparency – this commits governments to publishing as much information as

possible in an accessible form.

Open data approach – this enables us to reconfigure government data into forms that provide
useable and accessible information.

The Right to Information Act, 2005

“Where a society has chosen to accept democracy as its creedal faith, it is elementary that the
citizens ought to know what their government is doing.” -Justice P N Bhagwati

Right to Information (RTI) is an index to measure the growth and development of a country. In
India, till 2005, the citizens had no access to any information which was dealt by a Public
Authority. Matters effecting public interest was not easy for a common man to get accessibility.
The promulgation of Right to Information Act (2005) set the stage for the transparency in the
functioning of the government and its various agencies. Under this Act, access to information
from a public agency has become a statutory right of every citizen. In its enactment, it had been
argued that the system of government in India is so opaque that ordinary citizens do not have
much information about how decisions are made and how public resources are utilized. In effect,
RTI Act is a vehicle for greater transparency about the manner of functioning of public agencies.
There have been some major gains in disclosure of information, as reported in media and
research from time to time.

What constitutes ‘information’ ?

Section 2(f) of RTI Act defines “information” as any material in any form, including
records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advice, 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;

6
 Wherein “record” according to Section 2(i) includes—

 any document, manuscript and file;

 any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;

 any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or

not); and

 any other material produced by a computer or any other device;

What is ‘Right to Information’?

So as per Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under
this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right
to—

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii) Taking certified samples of material;

(iv) Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any
other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer
or in any other device;

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines “public authority” as any authority or body or
institution of self-government established or constituted,—

(a) By or under the Constitution;

(b) By any other law made by Parliament;

7
(c) By any other law made by State Legislature;

(d) By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—

(i) Body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) Non-Government Organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds

provided by the appropriate Government;

Apart from public authority, one may also access information of any private entity, subject
to the condition that the public authority may be legally entitled to access such information
sought by you under any existing law.

Exemption from disclosure of information:

Exemptions against furnishing information under the RTI Act have been provided under Section
8(1) and Section 9 of the Act. Unless the public authority is able to demonstrate that information
sought for falls under any of the exempted categories of information, it would be bound to
provide the information and that reasons for rejection of requests for information must also be
clearly provided. Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act being a non-obstante provision, over-rides other
provisions of the RTI Act.

Section 8- Exemption from disclosure of information:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any
citizen,—
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign
State or lead to incitement of an offence;

(b) Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or
tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

8
(c) Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the
State Legislature;

(d) Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the
disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(e) Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority
is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f) Information received in confidence from foreign government;

(g) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person
or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or
security purposes;

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution
of offenders;

(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and
other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the
material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision
has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which
come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship
to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of
the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be
denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

9
Section 9- Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases.—

Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be may reject a request for information where such a
request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person
other than the State.

Right to Information as a Fundamental Right:

Supreme Court on the Right to Information- The right to information is a fundamental right
flowing from Art. 19(1) (a) of the Constitution is now a well-settled proposition. Over the years,
the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the citizen’s right to know. The nature of
this right and the relevant restrictions thereto, has been discussed by the Supreme Court in a
number of cases: The development of the right to information as a part of the Constitutional Law
of the country started with petitions of the press to the Supreme Court for enforcement of certain
logistical implications of the right to freedom of speech and expression such as challenging
governmental orders for control of newsprint, bans on distribution of papers, etc. It was through
these cases that the concept of the public’s right to know developed.

The landmark case in freedom of the press in India was Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of
India (AIR 1973 SC 106), where the right to information was held to be included within the
right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a).

In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Court explicitly stated that it is not in the interest of the
public to ‘cover with a veil of secrecy the common routine business - the responsibility of
officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and
corruption.’

In SP Gupta v. Union of India, the right of the people to know about every public act, and the
details of every public transaction undertaken by public functionaries was described. In People’s
Union for Civil Liberties v. Union Of India 8 the court held that exposure to public scrutiny is
one of the known means for getting clean and less polluted persons to govern the country.
10
This principle was even more clearly enunciated in a later case in Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs India where the court remarked, “The basic purpose of freedom of
speech and expression is that all members should be able to form their beliefs and communicate
them freely to others. In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people’s right to
know.”

In State of U.P vs. Raj Narain. The 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. Once considerations of national security are left out there are
few matters of public interest which cannot be safely discussed in public”. K.K. Mathew went
further to say, 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. The right to know which is derived from the concept of
freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy
is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security.

In Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, vs. Subhash chandra Agarwal- High Court
of Delhi held that : The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and information so given by
CJI of the assets in public information. Declaration of assets by the SC Judges, is 'information
u/s 2(f) of the Act and the contents of asset declaration are to be treated as personal information,
and may be accessed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 8(1)(j). Lastly,
the CJI, if he deems appropriate, may in consultation with the Supreme Court Judges, evolve
uniform standards, devising the nature of information, relevant formats, and if required, the
periodicity of the declaration to be made. The Delhi HC directed that the CPIO, Supreme Court
of India, shall release the information sought by the respondent of the declaration of assets.

11
RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

The right to information act is a path making legislation which brings to light the secrecy of
administration. It is an effective means to promote democratic ideology. The act is powerful
instrument to fight against corruption. Access to information can empower the poor and
weaker sections of society to demand government information about public policies and
actions, thereby led to welfare of all. Good governance and right to information are
complimentary to each other. A nation whatever form of government it pursues must fulfil l
the aspirations of common man. Good governance is characterized by- political
accountability, availability of freedom, bureaucratic accountability, availability of
information, effectiveness, efficiency, law abiding citizen and cooperation between
government and society. As such the Right to information is a natural corollary of good
governance. The enactment of RTI act 2005 introduces an open and transparent
government and gives every citizen right to seek and receive information to make
administration more responsible and transparent which means good governance.

The Right to Information and transparency of administration as an effective tool of

good governance-

(1) Participation- Participation of both men and women is the cornerstone of good
governance. Representative democracy does not mean the rule of chosen few; it must take
into interest of all sections specially the most vulnerable sections in the society. The Right
to information acts gives people a chance to participate not just one in five years, but every
day and question any decisions. The right to Information act gives an opportunity to the
common men to participate in governance and reduce the imbalance in power relationship,
provides a tool to oppose injustice and allows collective spirit to make democracy work for
everyone. Right to information act also strengthen grassroots democracy and ensures
peoples participation in local governance and development activities.

(2) Accessibility- Right to Information makes it possible to easy access of information from
government departments, documents, records, services, finances and policies to all sectors
of community. The Right to Information act by providing easy access of information

12
reduces the traditional long gape between citizens and administration and thus helps in
nation building process. The right to know and easy access of government information helps
the people to understand the limitations of government at different levels. The avai lability
of information also helps to foster in development process and it is a symptom of true and
mature democracy.

(3) Transparency- Transparency is the milestone of good governance. Transparency means

that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and
regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those
who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement. Transparency and
accountability is possible only when the public have access to information. The enactment
of Right to Information act 2005, people are now able to seek information from any
government department with a definite time frame. The Right to Information act is intended
to promote accountability and transparency in government by making the process of
government decision making more open. Though some departments of the Union
government are exempted from this act but the information can be sought if it is concerned
with violation of human rights. Even the information from the private authority can be
sought only through the controlling authority and controlling authority will send the notice
to the institution concerned under section 11 of the act. In addition to this, the citizens are
taxpayers, so they have every right to ask the government.

(4) Accountability- Accountability is another requirement of good governance. Not only the
government, the private sector institutions should also accountable to the people.
Information is power and Right to Information act brings accountability and transparency in
the administration. The Right to Information act provides people with mechanism to access
information, which they can use to hold the government accountable or to seek explanation
as to why decisions have been taken, by whom and with what consequences or outcomes.
However, accountability cannot be achieved without transparency and rule of law.

(5) Empowerment- Before enactment of Right to Information Act, participation in political

and economic processes and the ability to make informed choices has been restricted to
India. As a consequence, commoners remain ignorant of various schemes and are unable to
13
resist when their rights become causality. At the same time, people remain ignorant in terms
of the ways and means through they can obtain their entitled rights from the concerned
departments legally. Now with enactment of Right to Information act people can participate
in decision making process and it enables the citizens to know about the government
decisions. The Right to Information act empowering people by removing unnecessary
secrecy surrounding in decision making process of the government.

(6) Equity and inclusiveness- Equity is another prominent feature of good governance. It
implies everybody is a part of the governance and they do not feel excluded from the
mainstream of society. The Right to Information act also does not make any discrimination
between rich and poor and it covers all the citizens in India. It always comes forward to
fight against inequality, injustice and inhuman activity.

(7) Effectiveness and Efficiency- The Seventh feature of good governance is efficiency
and effectiveness. The concept of efficiency in good governance covers doing work at first
speed and effectiveness means doing things effectively with result oriented. In this
connection Right to Information act will bring more effective and efficient record
management techniques that are needed to facilitate the provision of information in response
to public interest. Under RTI provision 4 (1) it is clearly mentions, ―It is the obligatory of
public authority to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed.‖ Under section 4(b)
―every public authority is requested to publish within 120 days from the enactment of the
act as many as 17 manuals.‖

The Hub of Transparency-

There are two separate bodies to hear complaint and appeals under the RTI Act, 2005. For
central level there will be Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information
Commission (SIC). CIC will deal with the matter pertaining to central level publ ic
authorities and SIC state level public authorities.

14
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION-

Section 12 provides for constitution of Central Information Commission (CIC). The Central
Government constitutes the body to be known as CIC. It shall consist of the Ch ief
Information Commissioner and other Central Information Commissioners (ICs). The general
superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the CIC shall vest in the Chief
Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by other Information Commissioners. The
headquarter of the CIC will be at Delhi. Chief Information Commissioner and other
Information Commissioners shall hold office for a term of five years and shall not be
eligible for reappointment provided maximum age of sixty-five years (Section 13). CIC and
other ICs can be removed as per Section 14.

The Chief Information Commission (CIC) was established in 2005 and came into operation
in 2006. Information Commissions sit at the crossroads between the rights of the public and
the duties of officials. At a minimum, all decision notices need to be collected internally
into a central database, so that Commissioners and staff can easily refer back to previous
decisions. State information commissions have also been setup, thus giving practical shape
to the 2005 Right to Information (RTI) Act. The CIC helps in spreading the culture of public
seeking information under the RTI and expose wrong doings. When handling cases, i t is
important that Information Commissions keeps in mind the law’s objective of promoting
open government via maximum disclosure of information and the information disclosure is
in the public interest. It is crucial that the Information Commission remains user-friendly.

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION-

Section 15 provides for constitution of State Information Commission (SIC). The State
Government constitutes the body to be known as SIC. It shall consist of the State Chief
Information Commissioner (SCIC) and other Information Commissioners (ICs) not
exceeding ten. The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the
SIC shall vest in the State Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by other

15
Information Commissioners. The headquarter of the SIC will be decided by state
government. State Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Commissioners
shall hold office for a term of five years and shall not be eligible for reappointment provided
maximum age of sixty-five years (Section 16). SCIC and other ICs can be removed as per
Section 17.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN CONSONANCE WITH RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Dr Manmohan Singh opined “There is a fine balance required to be maintained between the
right to information and the right to privacy, which stems out of the fundamental right to life and
liberty. The citizens' right to know should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of information
encroaches upon someone's personal privacy. But where to draw the line is a complicated
question,"

Right to Privacy under the Indian Constitution and International Conventions–

Right to privacy is not an explicit right under the Indian Constitution. Rather, it is implicit in the
“right to life” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every individual has a private side
and right to privacy aims to identify and confer the right to a person to be left alone, to indulge in
certain activities either alone or with someone whom he/she considers to be his/her confidante
(spouse). Right to privacy is a universal concept that finds eloquent manifestation in various
international covenants. Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence or to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation.” Article 8 of European
Convention on Human Rights, 1950 states “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life, his home and his correspondence; there shall be no interference by a public authority
except such as is in accordance with law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others.” The Constitution, thus, recognizes the right to privacy as an
implicit component of Article 21 and it has been further reiterated in Puttaswamy case that it is

16
doubtless that right to privacy is clearly a fundamental right, an intrinsic constituent of human
worth and dignity. It is further stated in Puttaswamy that privacy has two roles: normative and
descriptive. Privacy in the normative sense affiliates to moral principles, eternal values and
essentials pertaining to human dignity, autonomy and self worth. In the descriptive sense, it
refers to a bunch of entitlements and claims vindicated on the normative basis and rendered
implementable being supported by constitutional mandate. If the State denies it to any person,
he/she may approach the highest court of the land to vindicate and enforce the right. The human
rights consciousness further fortified the growing realization that creativity is best nurtured and
honed in an atmosphere of privacy and seclusion. This is the developmental aspect of privacy
which more than justifies the quick incorporation of the right to privacy into the broader embrace
of right to life under the Indian Constitution.

Right to Privacy under the RTI Act, 2005

According to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, information which has been
exempted from disclosure at the instance of a citizen of this country is defined as; “information
which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the
appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
disclosure of such information.” The above statutory provision quite clearly lays down that
private information respecting an individual which is lying with the government cannot be
sought by a third party as such information is exempted from disclosure on the rationale of an
individual’s right to privacy. However, the applicant who seeks such information from the
government may be allowed access to such information if it can be proved that such information
warrants disclosure on public interest. When a citizen is seeking his own information, there is no
potential breach of privacy as there is no intrusion into his privacy and, hence, Section 8(1)(j)
does not apply. But when a third party seeks information about a person under RTI, he may be
denied access to it unless such an application is justified on the ground of a larger public interest.
The Central Information Commission defined “Invasion of Privacy” as “One, who intentionally
intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another, or his private affairs

17
or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would
be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” It is the most critical responsibility of the public
authority receiving information regarding individuals to maintain a high degree of confidentiality
and not to disclose such information unless such disclosure is warranted under exceptional
circumstances owing to larger public interest. Personal information does not lose its privacy and
confidentiality just because it has been shared with public authorities. But it becomes a matter of
concern for if the public authorities share personal details of an individual with a third party
when such details have no reasonable nexus with public interest and there is every likelihood of
such information being manhandled by unscrupulous elements resulting in mischief, harassment,
reputational risk of the owner of such information. Besides, data integrity in this digital world is
a very crucial factor which calls for due circumspection from the government authorities as the
Supreme Court of India is quite emphatic in Puttaswamy of the need to properly preserve private
data of the citizens with utmost care coupled with robust technological infrastructure. The
urgency of data protection in today’s world has impelled the apex court to import the idea of
“informational privacy” as a significant dimension of privacy.

In Thappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited vs State of Kerala(2013) 16 SCC 82, the
Supreme Court has recognized that the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right emanates
from Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court in R.Rajgopal’s case held as under:

“...The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the
citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a ‘right to be let alone’. A citizen has a right
to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood,
child bearing and education among other matters.”

While referring to a judgment from Constitutional Court of South Africa in NM & Ors
vs Smith & Ors., 2007 (5) SA 250(CC), had this to say about the fundamental right to privacy
recognized by the South African Constitution:

An implicit part of this aspect of privacy is the right to choose what personal
information of ours is released into the public space. The more intimate that

18
 information, the more important it is in fostering privacy, dignity and autonomy that an
individual makes the primary decision whether to release the information or not. That
decision should not be made by others. This aspect of the right to privacy must be
respected by all of us, not only the state......”

In D S Nakara & ors vs Union of India (1983) 2 SCR 165 the Supreme Court while
holding that the division of pensioners into two classes being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution inter alia observed that a pension scheme which looked to the goals for
attainment of pension of welfare state proposed to be set up in the light of the Directive
Principles of State Policy and Preamble of the Constitution the pensioners for payment of
pension from a class. The division which classified the pensioners into two classes on the
basis of the specific date was devoid of any rational principle and was both arbitrary sand
unprincipled being unrelated to the object sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised
pension and the guarantee of equal treatment contained in Article 14 was violated inasmuch as
the pension rules which were statutory in character meted out differential and discriminatory
treatment to equals in the matter of computation of pension from the dates specified in the
impugned memoranda.

The Right to Information and the Right to Privacy: The Paradox

The right to information and the right to privacy are both essential human rights in the modern
information society. In most of the cases, both the rights complement each other in holding
governments accountable to individuals. But there is a zone of conflict which emerges when
there is a demand for access to personal information stored in a government database. It is an
established fact that RTI Act is a vital piece of legislation which guarantees one and all access to
public data or data pertaining to any activities of various public authorities. There is no conflict
of interest so far as information relating to various aspects of governance is concerned since it is
considered essential to allow the citizens of this country to seek information and know facts and
figures of various government departments. In some cases, the citizens may also claim access to
information kept in the database of private agencies provided such agencies are involved in

19
activities related to governance of the nation or outsourced to function at the instance of certain
public authorities and public departments. The citizens of India are taken as partners in the
functioning of the wheel of democracy and progression and this philosophy caters to the
justification of participatory democracy where transparency in its functioning is the truest
hallmark. But when the two rights confront each other, the government needs to develop
strategies and mechanisms to limit conflicts and to reconcile the rights as far as possible. Some
structural and legislative means and modalities need to be explored to harmonize right to
information and right to privacy. When the question of harmonizing the apparently conflicting
rights is raised, a sense of compromise and accommodative culture needs to be promoted to
ensure that the larger interest that needs to be nurtured under all circumstances is not
compromised. It is quite understandable that so far as the genre of both the rights – the right to
privacy and the right to information are concerned, they affiliate to the broader regime of human
rights. Right to privacy is no doubt essential for an individual’s satisfying sense of freedom
which creates a conductive atmosphere for the fullest possible manifestation of one’s personality
but when public interest becomes a crying need, private interest must yield to the demands of
public interest. Situational imperatives or urgency must determine the primacy of one right over
the other.

Right to privacy is not expressly given to citizens, but is the result of judicial review and court
decisions. Privacy essentially connotes the right of an individual to control circumstances and
situations based upon individual autonomy under which he is to share his personal information
and the extent to which he intends to share it. Right to Information on the other hand guarantees
to the citizens of a nation the right to seek information about government activities from
appropriate government sources. At the first inspection, it may seem that the right to access
information and right to privacy are irreconcilable. But privacy law and right to information law
are like two sides of the same coin – acting as complementary rights that encourage individual’s
right to protect them and to promote government accountability. The conflict between these two
rights needs to be reconciled and harmonized .The challenge lies with demarcating the extent or
limit up to which private information may be disclosed. Though there is no pedantic and state-of-
the-art method to mark the line of demarcation of disclosure and non-disclosure, some kind of
weighing of circumstances and contextual priority is necessary to ascertain how much of private

20
information of an individual needs to be disclosed having regard to the broader question of
public interest for the good of the society at large.

RTI and the Indian Judiciary-

The RTI Act was enacted on 15 June 2005 and it came into force on 15 October 2005. The basic
objective of this transparency statute is to bring about openness, transparency and accountability
of the government functionaries. Various judicial decisions have been pronounced with regard to
the RTI law in India to emphasize upon the significance of the RTI Act in bolstering the faith of
the common masses in the right to know and receive information. Right to information is the
right of the general public to seek and receive information from government sources as to how
decisions are taken, how the various expenditures are incurred by the various public authorities
and as to the various aspects of functioning of the government departments. The very right to
information draws inspiration from the constitutional basis derived from Article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution of India which states that “All citizens have the right to freedom of speech and
expression”. The Apex Court of India held that the right to information is an integral element of
the purpose of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The majority opinion held that freedom of
speech and expression takes within its fold the right of all the citizens of India to read and be
informed. In another case the Supreme Court of India stated, “In a government of responsibility
like ours where the agents of the public must be responsible for the conduct there can be but a
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 bearings.” The judgment in Manubhai. D. Shah v Life
Insurance Corporation reaffirmed this point. The fundamental purpose in the right to freedom
of speech and expression is to enable every person of this country to form opinions and beliefs
and share them freely with others. In essence, the foundational principle involved here is the
right to know. The Supreme Court almost a quarter of a century ago in S. P. Gupta & Others v.
Union of India, which is popularly known as the Judges Case, made an observation, “Now, if
secrecy were to be observed in the functioning of government and the processes of government
were to be kept hidden from public scrutiny, it would tend to promote and encourage oppression,
corruption and misuse or abuse of authority for it would be all shrouded in the veil of secrecy

21
without any public accountability.” Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in
governance and defective decision making. Open government always ensures greater
transparency and efficiency in the matter of governance and administration. There is no
gainsaying the fact that exposure to public scrutiny is the surest insignia of an efficient and
effective government. It is truly said that open government is a clean government and a powerful
shield against political and administrative opaqueness and incompetency.

22
 CONCLUSION

Though the RTI is a remarkable piece of legislation yet it has issues and challenges in its
execution and implementation especially in the downtrodden areas. For the effective
application of the Act, the following suggestions are put forward:

1. The technicalities of filing an RTI application should be more simplified. The

literacy rate of rural India is quite low and thus they find it quite difficult to comply
with the procedures.
2. The usability and effect of the RTI should be publicized by awareness campaigns to
the general people especially for the poor and marginalized people who are more
victimized when compared to the rest. In this aspect, the role of NGO’S and the
media is highly anticipated.
3. There is an urgent need to protect the whistle blowers who are targeted or attacked so
easily. The impending bill should be passed or else an ancillary strict measure should
be taken in this regard.
4. Children are considered resources for the future health of a nation. Therefore, RTI
act should be added in the school syllabus to arouse curiosity of children about RTI
at the grass-root level.

To ensure accountability the RTI shall target mismanagement, abuse of discretion,

corruption and other administrative malpractices. One can see Right to Information
as the key to strengthen participatory democracy and promoting people-centric
governance. Downtrodden sections of the society can be empowered by giving them
access to information so that they can demand their welfare and actually bring into
operation the numerous beneficial schemes of the government, which due to lack of
administrative intent to bring them in action mostly remain on paper.
In a fundamental sense, therefore the Right to Information Act, if used and
implemented prudently, has the potential to unleash good governance system more
responsive to community needs, and this is the basic premise of democracy.

23