1.

Can Shovan Succeed in Obtaining Details of Properties and Securities

Submitted by Anil under the RTI Act, 2005?

The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a landmark legislation aimed at promoting

transparency and accountability in public institutions. However, it is balanced with provisions
safeguarding the privacy of individuals and third-party information. Shovan’s request to a
nationalized bank for details about properties and securities submitted by Anil requires a
nuanced understanding of the RTI Act, its exemptions, and the legal framework surrounding
privacy and banking confidentiality. Below is a detailed analysis addressing whether Shovan
can succeed:

Applicability of the RTI Act to Nationalized Banks

Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, nationalized banks are classified as “public authorities”
because:

 They are established under statutes like the Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.
 They are substantially financed and controlled by the Government of India.

As public authorities, these banks are required to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act.
However, compliance does not mean unrestricted disclosure of all information. The RTI Act
prescribes specific exemptions to protect sensitive information, including third-party and
personal data.

Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, nationalized banks qualify as “public authorities” because
they are established by law and substantially financed by the government. Consequently,
these banks are obligated to furnish information under the RTI Act, unless the information is
exempted by its provisions.

In this context, Shovan, as a citizen, has the right to request information. However, his
success depends on whether the information sought falls within the permissible scope of
disclosure under the RTI Act.
The Right to Seek Information: Section 3 of the RTI Act

Section 3 of the Act grants every citizen the right to information held by or under the control
of public authorities. Shovan, as a citizen, is entitled to request information from the bank.
However, this right is not absolute. The bank can deny access to certain types of information
under Section 8 of the Act, particularly when it pertains to personal, confidential, or third-
party matters.

Exemptions Relevant to Shovan’s Request

A. Section 8(1)(j): Personal Information

 This clause exempts the disclosure of personal information that has no relationship to
public activity or interest or would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual.
 Application to the Case: The details of Anil’s properties and securities submitted to
the bank are personal financial information. Unless Shovan can demonstrate a
compelling public interest, this information cannot be disclosed.

B. Section 8(1)(d): Commercial Confidence

 Information involving trade secrets, commercial confidence, or intellectual property is

exempt if disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless there
is an overriding public interest.
 Application to the Case: Securities and properties offered as collateral are
commercially sensitive. Disclosing such information could breach the fiduciary duty
of confidentiality owed by the bank to its customers.

C. Section 8(1)(e): Fiduciary Relationship

 Information available to a public authority in a fiduciary capacity cannot be disclosed

unless there is a larger public interest.
 Application to the Case: The bank holds Anil’s details in a fiduciary capacity, and
disclosure would breach this trust unless public interest outweighs the harm caused.
Third-Party Information and Consent: Section 11

When an RTI request pertains to third-party information (e.g., Anil’s), the procedure outlined
in Section 11 must be followed:

1. Notice to Third Party: The Public Information Officer must notify Anil, giving him
an opportunity to object to the disclosure.
2. Evaluation of Objections: If Anil objects, the PIO must assess whether public
interest in disclosure overrides Anil’s right to privacy.
3. Final Decision: If the PIO finds public interest in favor of disclosure, they may
proceed, but the bank’s decision is subject to appeal before the First Appellate
Authority or the Central Information Commission.

In practice, the PIO would likely uphold Anil’s objections unless Shovan establishes an
overwhelming public interest.

Judicial Precedents Supporting Privacy

 CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)

The Supreme Court held that personal information held by public authorities is exempt unless
public interest justifies its disclosure. Shovan must demonstrate that disclosing Anil’s details
serves a larger public good, such as addressing corruption or fraud.

 Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012)

The Court ruled that financial and personal details, such as income tax returns, are protected
under Section 8(1)(j). Disclosure can occur only if the applicant proves public interest. Anil’s
financial submissions fall under this protection, and Shovan must justify their disclosure
beyond personal curiosity or interest.

 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

The right to privacy was recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Court emphasized safeguarding personal information from unnecessary
disclosure. Anil’s privacy rights would outweigh Shovan’s request unless larger public
accountability is at stake.
Shovan’s Case and the Burden of Proof

What Shovan Must Prove

 Public Interest: Shovan must provide evidence that disclosing Anil’s details
addresses issues of public importance, such as:
 Fraudulent activities involving the bank.
 Misuse of public funds.
 Corruption linked to Anil’s transactions.
 Impact on Public Resources: If Shovan can link Anil’s properties or securities to
systemic issues affecting the public, the PIO might consider the disclosure.

What Works Against Shovan

 Banking Confidentiality: Banks have a duty to protect customer information.

 Anil’s Objection: If Anil objects to the disclosure, the PIO would likely prioritize his
privacy.
 Lack of Public Interest: Without concrete evidence, Shovan’s request might appear
frivolous or personal.

CONCLUSION

Under the RTI Act, 2005, Shovan’s request to obtain details of properties and securities
submitted by Anil is unlikely to succeed. The information sought is personal, protected under
Section 8(1)(j), and involves third-party rights under Section 11. Unless Shovan proves that
disclosure serves a significant public interest- such as exposing fraud or corruption- the bank
is legally justified in denying the request.

The RTI Act aims to balance transparency with privacy. In this case, the exemptions
protecting Anil’s financial and personal information would outweigh Shovan’s right to know.
Shovan’s only viable recourse is to demonstrate public interest convincingly or seek legal
intervention to compel disclosure.
2. COMPOSITION, POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CENTRAL
INFORMATION COMMISSION (CIC)

The Central Information Commission (CIC) is a key body established under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act, 2005, with the mandate to ensure the effective implementation of
the Act and act as a custodian of transparency and accountability in governance. The CIC is
composed of a Chief Information Commissioner (CCIC) and Information
Commissioners who assist the CCIC in the performance of its functions.

The Chief Information Commissioner is the head of the Commission, while there can be up
to 10 Information Commissioners, appointed by the President of India. These
appointments are made on the recommendation of a selection committee, which includes the
Prime Minister (as Chairperson), the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a
Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This committee plays a critical role in
ensuring that the selection process is fair, transparent, and based on merit, with an emphasis
on the appointees' knowledge of governance, law, science, technology, social service, or
administration.

The tenure of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners is
three years, or until they attain the age of 65, whichever is earlier. Importantly, they are not
eligible for reappointment, ensuring that they serve with the requisite autonomy and
independence. The positions require individuals with proven expertise in various fields, and
their appointments are made to ensure a diverse and competent body that can oversee the
functioning of the RTI Act effectively.

 Powers and Functions of the Central Information Commission (CIC)

The CIC is vested with several important powers under the RTI Act, primarily aimed at
ensuring transparency and accountability in public administration. One of the most significant
powers of the CIC is the authority to adjudicate appeals and complaints. If a person does
not receive information within the prescribed period, or if they are dissatisfied with the
response or the denial of information, they can appeal to the CIC. The Commission has the
power to call for the records from the concerned public authority and determine whether the
denial of information was justified.
Additionally, the CIC serves as the second appellate authority, meaning that it handles
appeals against the decisions of the First Appellate Authorities (FAA), who are typically
senior officers in the concerned public authorities. The CIC has the authority to make binding
decisions regarding the release of information, and if it finds that the requested information
was unjustifiably withheld, it can order its disclosure. It can also impose penalties if the
Public Information Officer (PIO) has failed to act in accordance with the Act or has caused
undue delay in providing information.

Another key function of the CIC is to monitor the implementation of the RTI Act across
the country. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that public authorities comply with
the requirements of the Act, which includes timely responses to requests, proper record-
keeping, and adherence to transparency principles. The CIC also submits an annual report to
Parliament on the status of RTI implementation, detailing the number of requests and
appeals, compliance by public authorities, and challenges faced in the implementation
process.

Moreover, the CIC has the power to recommend disciplinary action against PIOs who are
found guilty of violating the provisions of the RTI Act. This can include cases of misconduct
such as refusal to accept RTI applications, providing false or misleading information, or
destroying records. The CIC can also direct public authorities to take specific actions to
ensure that they comply with the transparency norms set forth in the RTI Act.

 Appeals under the RTI Act, 2005

The RTI Act provides a robust framework for appeals and grievances redressal, ensuring
that citizens can challenge the decisions made by public authorities regarding the disclosure
of information. The Act outlines a three-tier appeal process to provide citizens with
adequate opportunities to seek redressal if their rights under the Act are violated.

First Appeal- The first level of appeal is to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which is
usually a senior officer in the same public authority from which the information was sought.
If a citizen is not satisfied with the response from the Public Information Officer (PIO), they
can appeal to the FAA. The appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date of receiving
the decision or the failure to receive any response at all. The FAA has the authority to review
the decision made by the PIO and, if necessary, order the release of the requested
information.

Second Appeal- If the appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the FAA, they can
approach the Central Information Commission (CIC), which acts as the second appellate
authority. The appeal must be filed within 90 days of receiving the decision from the FAA.
The CIC has the power to hear appeals, review the information denial, and order disclosure if
it deems appropriate. The CIC’s decisions are binding on public authorities, and the
Commission has the authority to enforce compliance through its powers under Section 20 of
the RTI Act.

Judicial Review- Though the CIC’s decisions are generally binding, they are subject to
judicial review. Citizens who are dissatisfied with the CIC’s orders can challenge them
through a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 or in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The judicial review process ensures that the decisions
of the CIC adhere to the principles of justice and law.

 Penalties under the RTI Act, 2005

The RTI Act also empowers the CIC to impose penalties on Public Information Officers
(PIOs) who fail to comply with the provisions of the Act. This is one of the most critical tools
the CIC has to ensure that public authorities adhere to the transparency and accountability
mandates of the Act.

Penalty Provisions

Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, if the CIC finds that the PIO has deliberately denied the
requested information or has provided incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information, it
can impose a fine of ₹250 per day of delay, up to a maximum of ₹25,000. This provision
serves as a deterrent against non-compliance and ensures that public authorities remain
diligent in their responsibilities under the RTI Act.

Disciplinary Action

In addition to monetary penalties, the CIC has the authority to recommend disciplinary
action against the PIOs involved. This can include actions ranging from warnings and
reprimands to more severe measures such as suspension or termination of service, depending
on the nature and severity of the misconduct.

Imposition of Penalties

Penalties can be imposed in situations where there is clear negligence or intentional

obstruction of the RTI process. For example, if the PIO does not respond within the
prescribed 30-day period or fails to provide a valid reason for denial, the CIC can impose
penalties. Similarly, if the PIO fails to appear before the CIC when summoned, it may result
in penalties being levied.

 Significance of the Central Information Commission (CIC)

The CIC plays a vital role in upholding the core principles of the RTI Act—transparency,
accountability, and public participation in governance. The Commission ensures that public
authorities are held accountable for their actions and that citizens can access the information
they need to participate in democratic processes. The CIC also helps to empower citizens,
giving them the tools to challenge government actions and decisions. In doing so, it fosters
greater public trust in government institutions and supports the building of an informed
electorate.

Moreover, the CIC’s functions help to ensure that the public sector remains transparent,
which is essential for the smooth functioning of a democratic society. By handling complaints
and appeals, the Commission ensures that no public authority operates in a vacuum, beyond
scrutiny. This contributes to the overall health of democracy, providing citizens with a
means to question authority and demand accountability.

The Central Information Commission is a pillar of India’s Right to Information

framework, designed to ensure that the principles of transparency and accountability are not
just theoretical but actively enforced in public governance. Through its powers to adjudicate
appeals, impose penalties, and monitor compliance, the CIC plays a crucial role in
strengthening democratic processes and ensuring that citizens’ rights to information are
protected.
3. Mohan has requested to furnish a photocopy of his evaluated answer sheet of the
University examination. The Public Information Officer of the University has refused to
furnish the same. Mohan prefers an appeal to the Information Commission. What will
be the decision of the Information Commission?

INTRODUCTION

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) was enacted to ensure transparency,
accountability, and access to information held by public authorities. It empowers citizens to
seek information that is vital for maintaining a transparent and democratic governance
system. In the context of education, particularly in examinations conducted by public
universities, the RTI Act plays a crucial role in upholding the rights of students to access their
evaluated answer sheets. This ensures fairness in the evaluation process and provides a
mechanism for redressal in case of discrepancies.

In the present case, Mohan has requested a photocopy of his evaluated answer sheet from the
University under the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the University,
however, has refused to provide the information. Aggrieved by this denial, Mohan has
approached the Information Commission for redressal. The decision in this matter not only
concerns Mohan’s individual right to information but also underscores the broader principles
of transparency and accountability in public examinations.

 The Right to Access Information:

The RTI Act, enacted in 2005, aims to promote transparency and accountability in the
functioning of public authorities. Section 3 of the Act provides every citizen with the right to
access information held by public authorities. Universities, being government-funded and
public in nature, come under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the Act,
“information” includes any material in any form, such as records, documents, and
manuscripts. An evaluated answer sheet falls under this definition, making it accessible under
the Act. The refusal by the PIO to furnish Mohan’s evaluated answer sheet is a denial of his
fundamental right to information, unless the refusal is backed by valid exemptions under
Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. However, evaluated answer sheets do not fall under
any of these exemptions, making the PIO’s refusal untenable in law.

 Refusal and its Implications:

The denial by the PIO not only violates the RTI Act but also undermines Mohan’s right to
ensure the accuracy and fairness of the evaluation process. The refusal, unless substantiated
with strong legal reasons, reflects a lack of accountability on the part of the University.
Furthermore, such denial may indicate an arbitrary approach to transparency, which the RTI
Act aims to eliminate. By refusing the request, the University risks penalties under Section 20
of the RTI Act, which provides for financial sanctions against errant officers.

 Judicial Precedents Supporting Disclosure:

The right of students to access their evaluated answer sheets has been upheld in several
landmark judgments. The most notable among them is CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay
(2011). In this case, the Supreme Court of India explicitly held that students are entitled to
obtain copies of their evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act. The Court rejected the
argument that such disclosure would violate any fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e)
of the Act. It further observed that providing such information promotes transparency and
ensures fairness in the examination process.

Another significant case is Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer (2010),

where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the RTI Act in promoting
transparency in public administration. Similarly, the Pritam Rooj v. University of Calcutta
(2014) judgment by the Calcutta High Court reinforced that the denial of answer sheets to
students infringes upon their right to information and fairness in the evaluation process.

 Analysis of Legal and Practical Considerations:

The primary purpose of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in public
institutions. Universities, being responsible for conducting examinations, owe a duty of
transparency to students. Furnishing evaluated answer sheets allows students to verify their
performance, identify any errors, and seek rectification if necessary.
The argument that answer sheets are protected under the fiduciary exemption under Section
8(1)(e) of the RTI Act has been consistently rejected by courts. The Supreme Court, in the
Aditya Bandopadhyay case, clarified that a fiduciary relationship implies trust for the
benefit of the principal, and the University’s obligation to evaluate fairly does not exempt it
from disclosing the information. Practical concerns, such as the workload of providing
copies, have also been addressed in judicial pronouncements. The Supreme Court has stated
that minor administrative inconvenience cannot be used to deny a fundamental right.
Therefore, the University’s refusal appears to lack both legal and practical justification.

 Likely Decision of the Information Commission:

Based on the above discussion, the Information Commission is expected to uphold Mohan’s
appeal and direct the University to provide him with a photocopy of his evaluated answer
sheet. The Commission may also issue the following directives:

1. Provision of Information:
The University will be ordered to furnish the photocopy within a specific time frame,
ensuring compliance with the RTI Act.
2. Warning or Penalty to the PIO:
If the refusal is found to be mala fide, the PIO may be penalized under Section 20 of
the RTI Act, which includes a fine of up to ₹25,000.
3. General Guidelines:
The Commission may issue broader guidelines to ensure that all public universities
adopt transparent practices and proactively disclose information to students when
requested.

 Conclusion:

The Information Commission’s decision will reinforce the principles of transparency,

accountability, and fairness in public examinations. The case highlights the importance of the
RTI Act as a tool for empowering citizens and ensuring good governance. By directing the
University to provide Mohan with his evaluated answer sheet, the Commission will uphold
not only Mohan’s statutory rights but also the broader objective of fostering trust and
accountability in educational institutions.
QP.4 . Urmila has requested to sought information regarding transfer and posting of
the entire clerical staff from 2020 to 2022 in the particular branch of a bank. Whether
Urmila will get the information under Section 6 and 8 of the Right to Information Act?

INTRODUCTION

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), was enacted to ensure transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public authorities. It empowers citizens to seek
information from government institutions and other public authorities to promote good
governance. In the present case, Urmila has sought information regarding the transfer and
posting of clerical staff at a particular branch of a bank between 2020 and 2022. The request
raises questions about whether such information can be disclosed under the provisions of
Section 6 and Section 8 of the RTI Act.

Section 6 outlines the procedure for seeking information, while Section 8 lists exemptions
under which information may be denied. This case requires an analysis of whether Urmila’s
request falls within the permissible limits of disclosure under the RTI Act or whether it is
exempted under its provisions.

Provisions Under Section 6 and 8 of the RTI Act

1. Section 6: Right to Seek Information

Under Section 6, any citizen can request information from a public authority by submitting an
application. Public sector banks qualify as public authorities under Section 2(h) of the Act. If
the bank in question is a public sector entity, Urmila’s application is valid, and the
information she seeks must be provided unless exempt under Section 8.

If the bank is a private entity, it does not come under the RTI Act directly. However,
regulatory bodies such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) may hold such records and can be
approached by Urmila for obtaining the information.

2. Section 8: Exemptions from Disclosure

Section 8 of the RTI Act provides grounds for denying information. In this case, the
following clauses are relevant:

 Section 8(1)(j): Personal Information

Disclosure of information that constitutes personal data, which has no relationship to
public activity or interest, is exempt if it would cause an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. While individual employee details such as personal contact information or
reasons for transfer might be exempt, general details like dates and locations of postings
are not likely to fall under this category.
 Section 8(1)(e): Fiduciary Relationship
Information held in a fiduciary capacity, such as employee records, may be exempt from
disclosure unless it is demonstrated that a larger public interest is served. Courts have
held that general information about transfers and postings in public sector banks does not
violate fiduciary obligations.
 Section 8(1)(d): Commercial Confidence
Information that harms the competitive position of an organization is exempt. However,
Urmila’s request regarding transfers and postings does not involve commercially
sensitive data, making this exemption inapplicable.

Judicial Precedents Supporting Disclosure

Judicial decisions have consistently upheld the principles of transparency and accountability
in matters related to public sector organizations:

1. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)

The Supreme Court in this landmark judgment held that the RTI Act is a tool to ensure
transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. It ruled that all
information held by public authorities must be disclosed unless specifically exempt under
Section 8 or Section 9 of the Act.
This judgment underscores that information related to administrative decisions, such as
transfers and postings of employees in public sector banks, must be disclosed unless a
specific exemption applies. Since Urmila’s request concerns general administrative details
rather than sensitive or exempted information, the principles from this case strongly support
her entitlement to receive the information.
2. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012)

The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Section 8(1)(j), which deals with personal
information. The Court held that personal information about public officials can only be
disclosed if it serves a larger public interest. Routine personal details, such as income, service
records, or reasons for transfers, are protected unless a larger public benefit can justify their
disclosure.
Urmila’s request involves the transfer and posting details of clerical staff, which may include
personal information. This judgment provides a basis for denying specific details that could
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, such as reasons for transfers or personal
identifiers. However, general information like transfer dates and branch locations does not
qualify as “personal information” and is likely to be disclosed.

3. Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as a regulatory body, cannot
deny information under the claim of fiduciary duty when such information concerns the
larger public interest. The Court emphasized that transparency in financial institutions is
essential to ensure accountability and build public trust. If the bank in question is a public
sector bank or if the RBI holds the requested information, this case reinforces the idea that
such information must be disclosed. The Court's observation about prioritizing transparency
over fiduciary obligations applies directly to Urmila’s request, as general transfer and posting
details pertain to the bank’s administrative functions, which are in the public domain.

The principles established in these judgments collectively affirm that Urmila’s request for
transfer and posting details is valid under the RTI Act, with certain limitations regarding
personal information. The decisions emphasize the overarching goals of transparency,
accountability, and public interest, which are central to the RTI Act’s objectives. Therefore,
unless the information requested is exempt under Section 8, Urmila is likely to receive the
general details of the transfers and postings she seeks.

Analysis of Urmila’s Case

 Applicability to Public Sector Banks:
If the bank is a public sector institution, the information sought by Urmila falls within the
scope of the RTI Act. The details of transfers and postings, being administrative
decisions, are not inherently private or sensitive unless they reveal personal information.
 Personal vs. General Information:
Information such as names, personal contact details, or reasons for transfer might be
exempt under Section 8(1)(j). However, general details, such as the number of transfers,
dates, and locations, are administrative in nature and not exempt under the RTI Act.
 Private Sector Banks:
If the bank is a private institution, it is not directly covered by the RTI Act. However,
Urmila may approach the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which, as a public authority,
might possess the relevant information.

Conclusion

Urmila’s request for information under the RTI Act is valid if the bank in question is a public
sector entity. While Section 8 of the RTI Act provides exemptions, they are limited to
personal, fiduciary, or commercially sensitive information. General details regarding the
transfer and posting of clerical staff do not fall within these exemptions and should be
disclosed. Judicial precedents support the principle that transparency in public institutions,
including administrative decisions, is critical for good governance. Thus, Urmila is likely to
receive the requested information, either fully or partially, depending on the nature of the
bank and the specifics of her query.

The right to know is the outcome of judicial activism. Explain

Introduction

Human Dignity and Human Liberty are most precious and cannot be compromised at any
cost. This was recognized by the world at large during the twentieth century, when human
rights movement got momentum as never before. Human beings have some basic needs.
Some Resources are required to meet these needs. They have the right to control these
resources. Information of these resources are required for efficient control. Thus, they have
the right to receive information of these resources. It is obvious from the Constitution of India
that we have adopted a democratic form of Government. In a Democracy, Government is of
the people, by the people and for the people. Hence, the citizens ought to know what their
Government is doing. Keeping the citizens informed is an obligation of the Government. The
citizens' right to know the true facts, about the administration of the country, is, one of the
pillars of a democratic State. And that is why the demand for openness in the Government is
increasingly growing in different parts of the world.- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982
SC 149: (1981)

Article 19 of the Constitution: "Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech

etc.-

(1) All citizens shall have the right-

(2) (a) to freedom of speech and expression; ...... Article 19(2) places certain reasonable
restrictions upon this freedom in the interest of certain human and professional values. The
interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution is the duty of the Supreme Court of India
and the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution
of India which reads as under: “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on
all courts within the territory of India.” Article 19 of the Constitution of India has been
interpreted to mean that right to information is one of the essential ingredients of Article
19(1). Right of information is a facet of the freedom of "speech and expression" as contained
in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Right of information, thus, indisputably is a
fundamental right. The right to impart and receive information is a species of the right of
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which reads
as under:

"(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."
All members of society should be able to form their own beliefs and communicate them
freely to others. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts
and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. In
sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people's right to know.

Objectives:

The freedom of speech and expression is a right given to every citizen of this country. It
encompasses freedom of press. The freedom of speech and expression includes right to
acquire information and to disseminate it. It enables people to contribute to debates on social
and moral issues. It is the best way to find a true model of anything, since it is only through it
that the widest possible range of ideas can circulate. 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.

Early Information:

The fundamental right of free expression includes the right of the public to know as to what
the Government is doing in a democracy. Here it would be appropriate to mention that the
right to information even before passing of a statute is implied from the procedure being
adopted in parliamentary democracy. When any Bill is introduced in Parliament or the State
Legislature, the copies of the same are distributed amongst the members and then either the
Bill is referred to the select committee or generally deferred to the next session for
discussion. The purpose is that when the elected representatives of the people visit their
constituencies during the intervening period before next Session of the Parliament or
Assembly, as the case may be, they should tell the public at large that such and such Bill is
pending consideration and the opinion of the voters should be taken into consideration which
should be put forth when the Bill is taken up for clause to clause discussion in the next
Session of the Parliament/ State Legislature. Similarly, the press can play its role by bringing
the contents of the Bill to the notice of the public at large by publishing the salient features of
the Bill in media and in this way the right to information can be exercised by the citizens of
this country even at the stage of making of the law by the Parliament/State Legislature. The
purpose of the same is that before a new law comes on the statute book and is implemented,
there should be general awareness in the public regarding contents of the law because of the
fact that "ignorance of law" is no excuse.

Case Laws:

Access To Telecasting

A citizen has a fundamental right to use the best means of imparting and receiving
information and as such to have an access to telecasting for the purpose. - Secretary, Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, AIR
1995 SC 1236.

Particulars Of Every Public Transaction

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. 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- State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975.

Right To Participate

In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket

Association of Bengal, Hon'ble Supreme Court, with regard to telecasting of events such as
cricket and hockey, etc., held as under:-

"The democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the
polity of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the country is meaningless
unless the citizens are well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are
called upon to express their 10 views. One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation
and non-information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a
farce when medium of information is monopolized either by a partisan central authority or by
private individuals or oligarchy organizations. This is particularly so in a country like ours
where about 65 per cent of the population is illiterate and hardly 1 1/2 per cent of the
population has an access to the print media which is not subject to pre-censorship."

The right to information

The right to information provided for by the Parliament under section 33A of the
Representation of the People Act in regard to the pending criminal cases and past
involvement in such cases is reasonably adequate to safeguard the right to information vested
in the voter / citizen.- People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR
2003 .

National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution

The Report of National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC),
under the Chairmanship of justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, dated March 31, 2002 also
recognised the right to information as a fundamental right and laid down in para 6.10.1 of the
report that major assumption behind a new style of governance is the citizen's access to
information. Much of the common man's distress and helplessness could be traced to his lack
of access to information and lack of knowledge of decision-making processes. He remains
ignorant and unaware of the process which virtually affect his interest. Government
procedures and regulations shrouded in veil of secrecy do not allow the clients to know how
their cases are being handled. They shy away from questioning officers handling their cases
because of the latter's snobbish attitude and bow- wow style. Right to information should be
guaranteed and needs to be given real substance. In this regard Government must assume a
major responsibility and mobilize skills to ensure flow of information to citizens. The
traditional insistence on secrecy should be discarded. In fact, we should have an oath of
transparency in place of an oath of secrecy. Administration should become transparent and
participatory. Right to minimizing manipulative and dilatory tactics of the babudom, and, last
but most importantly putting a considerable check on graft and corruption. The Commission
in its summary of recommendations made provisions for amendment of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India to provide for as under: "(1) All citizens shall have the right- (a) to
freedom of speech and expression which shall include the freedom of the press and other
media, the freedom to hold opinions and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas.

Exceptions
Reasonable Restrictions

The State under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution, however, is entitled to impose
reasonable restrictions, inter alia, in the interest of the State - People's Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2004 se 1442.

Whistle Blower Laws

However, like all other rights, even this right has recognized limitations; it is, by no means,
absolute. In transactions which have serious repercussions on public security, secrecy can
legitimately be claimed because it would then be in the public interest that such matters are
not publicly disclosed or disseminated. It is now recognized that while a public servant may
be subject to a duty of confidentiality, this duty does not extend to remaining silent regarding
corruption of other public servants. Society is entitled to know and public interest is better
served if corruption or mal-administration is exposed. The whistle blower laws are based
upon this principle.- Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 sec 306.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is clear that the Supreme Court of India right from 1975 onwards has
consistently held that right to receive information or the right of being informed is implicit in
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India subject only to reasonable restrictions permitted
to be imposed by Article 19(2) of the Constitution in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence.

Examine the origin and development of the concept of "Right to Know" in

India.

Background of RTI in India

The voice of the public to get information from the Government got momentum during the
last decade and various State Governments in India enacted Right to Information Acts in the
years 2000- 2002, which were applicable in the respective States. Then came the Freedom of
Information Act, 2002. It was found that even this Act did not fulfil the aspiration of the
citizens of India. In order to ensure greater and more effective access to information, it was
thought that the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 must be made more progressive,
participatory and meaningful. Thus the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 was repealed and
the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been enacted by the Parliament, which is considered
as a landmark step to enhance fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed under Article
19 of the Constitution of India. The Right to Information Bill received assent of the President
of India on 15th June, 2005 and has come on the statute book as the Right to Information Act,
2005. This Act is applicable to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir.

Preamble

The Preamble of the Act spells the purpose of the RTI Act as under:

(a) for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens;
(b) to secure access to information under the control of public authorities;
(c) to promote transparency & accountability in the working of every public authority;
(d) to ensure informed citizenry and transparency in governance;
(e) to curtail corruption and to hold Government & their instrumentalities accountable to the
governed;
(f) to harmonize conflicting public interests in disclosure and exemptions;
(g) constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commission and
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Objectives

It sets out the following objectives to be achieved through the Right to Information Act:

(a) to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure
access to information under the control of public authorities;
(b) in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public
authority;
(c) the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information
Commissions; and
(d) for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
What are the Salient Features of the RTI Act?

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

Preamble of the Act

The Preamble of the Act spells the purpose of the RTI Act as under: (a) for setting out the
practical regime of right to information for citizens; (b) to secure access to information under
the control of public authorities; (c) to promote transparency & accountability in the working
of every public authority; (d) to ensure informed citizenry and transparency in governance;
(e) to curtail corruption and to hold Government & their instrumentalities accountable to the
governed; (f) to harmonize conflicting public interests in disclosure and exemptions; (g)
constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commission and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Commencement of the Act

The Act consists of 31 sections out of which 9 came into effect from 15th June, 2005. Section
4(1)(b) fixes 120 days from that date as the date from which it becomes effective. Therefore,
the entire Act can be said to have been effective from 12th October, 2005.

1. Only citizens can apply for information

2. All public authorities are answerable under the Act
3. Nature of the information must be relevant to administration of the State
4. Applicant need not provide reasons
5. The information must be disseminated within 30 days
6. Reasons or rejection of application to be provided
7. First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority
8. Limitation to file and dispose the appeals
9. Information is one which is already recorded in official records and published
10. Information requested should not relate to any exempted matter under the Act.

Criticism of the Act

The Act penalises the public authorities only in case of non provision of information. There
is no penalty or remedy under the Act for non compliance with procedural aspects like
display of the names of information officers on the departmental notice boards. Also, the
State Governments and Competent Authorities are at liberty to fix the application fee which
is a power that can be grossly misused to deny information. Another criticism of the Act is
the exclusion of file notings from the purview of the Act.

Objects of the Act

To enable smoother and greater access to information by replacement of the Freedom of

Information Act, 2002.

Changes in the new Act include:

1. Establishment of an Appellate Machinery to review decisions of the PIOs.

2. Penal provisions for failure to provide information
3. Provisions to ensure maximum disclosure, and minimum exemptions, consistent with the
Constitution.
4. Effective mechanism for disclosure of information by the authorities. Making an
application for information

Examine the procedure to get information and the obligation of the Public
Authorities to provide information.

Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) - What is it for?

The Right to Information Act, 2005 was established to make the government accountable for
its work by empowering citizens to demand information regarding its activities. This act
applies to both the Central and the State Governments of India except Jammu and Kashmir,
which has its own RTI Act. When used effectively, the RTI Act can help us in effectively
getting various personal and commercial results, especially when we are dealing with the
government. Latest amendment in 2016, for fixing a time limit on second appeal.

Examples
• Information such as status of your passport application (or reasons for delay)? ( Public
Service)

• How money is being spent by the government?

To whom Applicable?

Applicable to Government at all levels- Union, State and Local as well as recipients of
government grants. i.e. from the public authorities orall the governing bodies. From village
panchayats to the presidential office.

Since the RTI Act is applicable only to the Public Authorities, private bodies such as private
schools, colleges, co-operative societies, banks, companies, trusts, service providers etc. are
outside its purview.

What is a Public Authority - Section 2(h)

A "public authority" is any authority or body or institution of self-government established or

constituted by or under the Constitution; or by any other law made by the Parliament or a
State Legislature; or by notification issued or order made by the Central Government or a
State Government. The bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Central
Government or a State Government and non-Government organizations substantially
financed by the Central Government or a State Government also fall within the definition of
public authority. The financing of the body or the NGO by the Government may be direct or
indirect.

What information are we talking about? Section 2(f)

The RTI aims to allow citizens to ask for records, documents, circulars, contracts, reports,
papers, emails, memos and all other information held in print or electronic form from the
public authorities, i.e. all the governing bodies. Broadly, the Act applies to functions
performed by public authorities. Information about how budgets are decided, purchases
made, government discretion is used, ministers spend their time, hospitals are run, benefits
are distributed, transfers and appointments made, courts function, environmental clearances
are given, criteria for secrecy is founded, and much more. It also includes information
relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for
the time being in force. Information about commercial ventures where the government is
significantly involved (e.g. transport, mining, banking etc.), where it is in a joint venture with
the private sector (e.g. public- private partnerships for infrastructure development) or where it
has conducted auctions (e.g. for natural resources or issuance of licenses for spectrum
allocation) where private parties have bid, is brought within the ambit of RTI.

Exceptions

There are certain sections of administrative activities that are exempt from the RTI Act,
details of which can be found in Section 8 and 9 of RTI Act 2005. A PIO can refuse
information on 11 subjects that are listed in the RTI Act. These include Cabinet papers,
information received in confidence from foreign governments, information prejudicial to
security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the country, breach of privilege of
legislatures, etc. The central intelligence agencies need not give information, except on
matters pertaining to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.

Procedure

Identification of Information Required

Determine what information is required from a governing body.

Finding the Relevant Public Authority

For example, if your local drainage system is in a bad shape, you know that your application
has to be addressed to the local Municipal Corporation. Similarly, if you want information on
your ration card, you need to approach Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department.

Locating The Public Information Officer

After having identified the department, the next step would be locating PIO officers. The role
of PIOs is pivotal as it is them who make the right of citizens to seek Information a reality.
The Act envisages that each public authority must appoint a PIO to disseminate information
and to make him liable for penalty in case of default. Most of the Public authorities have
placed details of PIO and APIO on their websites. You can also visit the address of the
nearest Public Authority and ask for PIO details. Further, the Department of Posts has
appointed Central Assistant Public Information (CAPIO) Officers in various post offices and
they work as Assistant Public Information Officers for all the public authorities under the
central Government departments. You can also take help of local/state-level NGOs or RTI
helpline phone numbers for locating the correct PIO. who would be holding information
required by you. You can call RTI National Helpline on any of the 7 days of the week from
8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. at (080) 666-00-999

When No PIO Has Been Appointed By The Public Authority?

It is mandatory for all Public Authorities to appoint PIOs under Section 5 of the Act which
provides that all Public Authorities shall appoint Public Information Officers within hundred
days of enactment of the RTI Act. The Applicant, has a right to file a complaint to the State
Information Commission or Central Information Commission, as the case may be, under
Section 18 of the RTI Act if no PIO, APIO or First Appellate Authority (FAA) has been
appointed by the Public Authority.

Application : Who can make an RTI Application?

The Right to Information Act extends to whole of India except the state of Jammu and
Kashmir. S1(2) All citizens including Indians living abroad possess the right to seek
information. This implies that the person seeking information must be an individual and not a
corporation, society or any other public authority. Neither persons of Indian Origin nor
foreign nationals can avail the benefits under this Act.

Language of the RTI Application

The application can be written in English, Hindi or any official language of the state in which
the department lies. The courts and commissions have laid down in several judgments that
information should be given to Applicant in the language he understands. As a precautionary
measure, It is always advisable to mention in your application clearly the language in which
you seek reply. The documents, records, file noting etc. that you are seeking will be provided
in the language in which they were originally prepared. The PIO will not translate the
documents in the language you understand. It is only his/her reply that can be given in the
preferred language and not the content of documents sought.
Important fields to be covered in an application

1. ADDRESSEE & ADDRESS: You must address your application to the Public
Information Officer of the department which is likely to have the information you are
seeking. The address of the PIO must contain the details of the department viz. name, address
and city in which it is located.
2. NAME & ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT: Write down your name and the postal
address of the place you wish to receive information at. Make sure that all the information
provided is accurate as this would be the address at which PIO could be corresponding with
you.
3. PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED: In this section, all the information
sought must be broken down in a systematic manner so as to ensure that the reader deciphers
accurately the information sought from the department. For convenience, this segment may
be divided into 4 heads, viz:

a. Subject matter of information: In this section, you must mention:

• The kind of records being sought, such as file noting, communication, documents etc.,

• Pertaining to what, for example - for appointment to a particular post,

• Whose records are being sought, for example - Chancellor, Vice president etc.

• Concerning which department, for example - Labour Department, Government of West

Bengal.

For example: Please give a copy of the contract signed by the M/s. Akhil Bhartiya Amrit
Paryavaran Samity to operate and maintain the public toilet in Jagdamba Camp in Sheik Sarai
I, New Delhi -17

b. The period to which the information relates: In this section, it must be mentioned which
period's records are being sought for. For example: o Please provide copies of all
communication between Kandla Port Trust and Ministry of Shipping from 2012-2013 with
regard to appointment of chairman of Kandla Port Trust, o Please provide Daily Stock
Register and Daily Sale Register of Fair Price Shop No. 343 situated in Raigad dist.,
Maharashtra from January 2014 to January 2015.
c. Whether information is required by post or in person: It must be mentioned whether the
information sought should be furnished in person or by post
d. Whether inspection of the documents is sought: If you wish to view the documents, it
must be explicitly written in this column. If you say yes to taking inspection of the
documents, it then becomes duty of PIO to give you a suitable time and date to come and take
inspection.

4. REASON FOR INFORMATION: Section 6(2) of the RTI Act clearly states that an
applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give any reason for
requesting the information.
5. BPL STATUS: The next paragraph of your application must set out whether you lie above
or below the poverty line. A person is said to be living below the poverty line if their per
capita expenditure is than Rs. 32 a day in villages and less than Rs.47 in cities. If the answer
is YES, then a proof should be submitted in support of the claim that you belong to the below
poverty line. No fee is required to be paid by persons falling below the poverty line.
However, if you do not belong to the category of Below Poverty Line, you must undertake to
pay appropriate costs for furnishing required information.
6. TRANSFER OF APPLICATIONS: Many times the nature of the information sought from
a particular PIO might be such that it is more closely connected to another public authority or
that it is held by another department. Section 6(3) of the RTI Act lays down the provisions for
transfer of such applications to the relevant public authority within 5 days of receipt of
application. Thus, it is always advisable to state, in the last paragraph, if any part of the
information sought is held by another public authority, the same may be transferred to the
relevant public authority.
7. SIGNATURE: The place from where the application is written and date on which it is
written should also be specified. The application must end with the signature of the applicant
and the required contact details.
8. ENCLOSURES: Lastly, you must write down the details of your enclosures. For instance
if you belong to the Below Poverty line category, then you must enclose the Below Poverty
Line Certificate along with your application. An amount of Rs. 10 is also supposed to be
enclosed which you may pay be cheque, demand draft or cash.
Filing Your RTI Application

You can file your RTI application by any of three methods:

1. Physical Delivery: You can submit your application to the 'TAPAL" also called as
Inward/Outward section of the respective department. Make sure that you collect a signed
and dated copy of your RTI Application. This enables you to keep a track on your application
at a later stage.
2. By post: You can send your RTI application by post to the PIO of the relevant department
by any of the two modes:

• Registered Post AD: The AD card will act as proof of submission, after it is returned to you
by the postal department.

• Speed Post (A postal department service): Once the application is sent by Speed Post, track
it and keep a print out of the delivery status carefully with you.

NOTE: Do not use ordinary post, private courier companies, etc. since these will not provide
you with a confirmed proof of delivery.

3. Online: You can also file your RTI applications to the Central Ministries/Departments and
other Central Public Authorities mentioned in ONLINE RTI request form through the RTI
Online Portal by simply clicking on rtionline.gov.in. The word limit for filing applications
online through this portal is 3000 words. Note: If possible also send an email of RTI
Application to PIO's official email ID displayed in the website on the same date. The clock
starts ticking from the moment the email is sent (not opened). It isn't a valid application till it
is accompanied by the proper fee. The Fees (Rs.10) along with RTI Application can be sent
by post subsequently, but the time limit starts from the day the email is sent/received.

WHAT IF THE PIO REFUSES TO ACCEPT AN APPLICATION?

If the PIO refuses to take physical delivery of your RTI application, you should send it by
post and keep the acknowledgment receipt with you. The PIO cannot refuse to accept your
application even if the information is not related to his department. lt is the duty of the PIO to
accept the application and transfer it to the right PIO within 5 days as per section 6(2). You
can also make a formal complaint to Information Commission under Section 18 who has the
power to impose penalty on the defaulting officer up to Rs. 25,000.

Fees: Application Fee: A person who desires to seek some information from a Public
Authority is usually required to pay a sum of Rs. 10 along with the application. This
application fee may differ from state to state and some organizations also lay down a separate
provision for payments of fees. Such fees must be payable to the Accounts Officer of the
public authority and can paid to the Public Authority in the following manner:

1. By way of a demand draft

2. Banker's cheque
3. Indian Postal Order
4. By way of cash to the Accounts Officer or to the Assistant Public Information Officer
against proper receipt.
5. The payment of fee to the Central Ministries/departments can also be made online through
internet banking of State Bank of India or through Master/Visa Debit/credit cards. Cost of
providing information: In addition to the application fees, you may also have to also pay a
further fee towards cost of providing the information, details of which are duly intimated by
the PIO as per the rules laid down under Right to Information (Regulation of fees and cost)
Rules, 2005, after your application is filed. The rates as prescribed by the rules are as follows:

a. For information provided in printed form- At the price fixed for such publication or
Rupees two (Rs. 2/-) per page of photocopy for extracts from publication.

b. For inspection of records- There is no fee for the first hour, and a fee of Rupees five (Rs.
5/-) for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof) c. For making copies of information (that
is identified after inspection)- • Rupees Two (Rs. 2/-) for each page (A-4 or A-3 size) created
or copied • Actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper • Actual cost or price for
samples or models d. For information provided in digital media (disks or floppy) - Rupees
Fifty (Rs. 50/-) per diskette or floppy - Floppy drives are obsolete now, so you may want to
insist on information to be provided on CDs. Please note that applicants belonging to the
Below Poverty Line Category are not required to pay any fee.
HOW / When DOES ONE KNOW THE COST TO BE PAID TOWARDS
PROCUREMENT OF RECORDS?

The PIO after receiving your RTI application evaluates the cost of the documents that you
have sought and sends an intimation letter giving out the breakup of the cost. In case you
have asked for inspection, he will also give you the date, time and place for carrying out the
inspection. Practically speaking, the PIO replies within 30-45 days of receiving your
application. Once you receive this letter of intimation, you can make payment of requisite
fee through any of the modes as mentioned above and your information will be furnished to
you within 7 days.

What happens if you fail to pay additional fees towards cost of providing information
within 30 days deadline? Can PIO be penalized for lapse on your part?

No, PIO will not invite penalty in such cases. The30 day clock stops ticking from the date of
dispatching the intimation for further fees issued by the PIO and restarts from the day such
fee is paid by the applicant. [Section 7(3)(a) and Section 7(3)(b)] For example, if the PIO
dispatches the intimation letter of additional fees on the 4th of receipt of your application,
then only 4 days would be counted to have lapsed from 30 day limit. The clock will restart
from the day he receives payment of additional fees from you. The PIO in the present case
will have to provide you information within 26 days from the date of payment of such
additional fees. If the applicant chooses to seek review of the additional fee from the
Appellate Authority or SIC/CIC, then the period taken to decide the matter will not be
included in the 30 day limit.

APPEAL

You can file an appeal under the Right to Information Act whenever the PIO fails to respond
to your application, or when you are aggrieved by the response of the PIO. In other words,
this means that if the PIO fails to give you a reply, or charges unreasonable fees for giving
copies of documents, or fails to give a satisfactory reply, or does not give a reply within the
stipulated time frame etc., you have the power to file an appeal with the appropriate
authority. Section 19 of the Right to Information Act lays down two stages of appeal, the
First Appeal is to be made to the appellate authority and the Second Appeal lies with the
Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be.

I. FIRST APPEAL

When can the first appeal be made: You can make an appeal to the Appellate Authority if:
a. You are aggrieved by the decision made;

b. If no decision was made within the proper time limits;

c. You are a third party consulted during the application process, and you are unhappy with
the decision made by the PIO.

What is the time frame for making First Appeal: The Applicants who are aggrieved by a
decision of a PIO can make an appeal to a departmental Appellate Authority within 30 days
of receiving a reply from the PIO or at the expiry of the time period within which the
information should have been provided by the PIO. However, if you miss that deadline and
the Appellate Authority is convinced that you had justifiable cause for missing the deadline,
he/she may allow you to submit an appeal even after the 30 days have expired at their
discretion.

Who can make First Appeal: Any person aggrieved by the order of the PIO can file first
appeal. You can also request your friend or an RTI Activist or any other person to file a
complaint on your behalf, provided he/she has a copy of all the relevant documents such as
RTI Application, acknowledgment receipt, PIO reply, etc.

Who should the First Appeal be made to: In every public authority, an officer who is
senior in rank to the PIO has been designated to hear appeals and is referred to as the First
Appellate Authority (FAA). Every first appeal shall be referred to the FAA of the same
public authority within which the RTI application was made. The original decision or
rejection notice you receive from the PIO should include contact details for the relevant
Appellate Authority so that you know who you can go to get the decision reviewed. If the
notice is deficient, you may want to check the website of the public authority or contact the
PIO directly and ask for the Appellate Authority's details.

How to file First Appeal:

a. Directly by handing documents over in person to the FAA
b. Send the set of appeal documents by speed post or RPAD to the FAA of the relevant public
authority
c. Additionally you can also send the appeal to the APIO in the relevant public authority who
then has a duty to forward it to the relevant Appellate Authority.
d. Online Portal for Central Government public authorities only- http://rtionline.gov.in for
filing your appeal online,

What is the prescribed fee for filing First Appeal: The Central Government has not
prescribed any fee for filing an appeal with the Appellate Authority. Unfortunately, some
State Governments, like Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, have prescribed Rules which
impose an appeal fee. Challenges have been filed against such rules, stating that no appeal
can be rejected or stalled on account of non-payment of fee towards an appeal. If your State
Government has prescribed an appeal fee and you are unwilling or unable to pay it, you can
either move the relevant State Information Commission or the State High Court to consider
the issue of levy of fees.

Disposal of First Appeal: The RTI Act does not provide for any procedure to be followed
for deciding appeals. However, the Appellate Authority must offer you an opportunity to be
heard before a decision on your appeal is reached. In any appeal, it is the PIO who needs to
prove to the Appellate Authority that they made the right decision. Only if they make a
defensible case, should you be asked to explain why you think they are wrong. The Central
Act requires that the internal Appellate Authority (FAA) dispose off your appeal within 30
days or 45 days if an extension is necessary.

II. SECOND APPEAL

The Right to Information Act lays down provision for second appeal in cases when you are
unhappy and dissatisfied with the decision given by the First Appellate Authority.
Information Commissions have been set up at the centre and states for hearing such appeals.

What is the time frame for making Second Appeal: A second appeal against a decision of
an Appellate Authority to the Information Commission must be made within 90 days from
the date on which the decision should have been made or from the date a decision was
actually received. However, the Information Commission has the discretion to allow appeals
after this period has expired if there is sufficient cause for such delay.

Who can make Second Appeal: Any person aggrieved by the order of the PIO can file
second appeal. You can also request your friend or a RTI Activist or any other person to file
a complaint on your behalf provided he has a copy of all the relevant documents such as RTI
Application, acknowledgment receipt, PIO reply, first appeal, order of FAA etc. Format of
Authorization Letter enclosed. Who should the Second Appeal be made to: The Central
Information Commission and State Information Commission have been set up at the centre
and state level respectively to hear complaints and second appeals. You need to send your
appeal to the relevant Information Commission in writing. In matters relating to Central
Government public authorities, you need to send your appeal to the Central Information
Commission. For matters relating to State Government public authorities you will need to
send your appeal to the concerned State Information Commission. Appeals against
Panchayats will be sent to the relevant State Information Commission. How to file Second
Appeal a. directly by handing them over in person b. send them by speed post or RPAD to
the respective Information Commission of the state or Central information Commission. c.
Additionally you can also send the appeal to the APIO in the relevant public authority who
then has a duty to forward it to the relevant Information Commission. d. Online Portal for
second appeals pertaining to central government-related public authorities - rtionline.gov.in.
What is the prescribed fee for filing Second Appeal The Central Government has not
prescribed any fee for filing a second appeal with the Information Commission.
Unfortunately, some State Governments, like Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, have
prescribed Rules which impose an appeal fee. Legally speaking, no appeal can be rejected or
stalled on account of non-payment of fee towards an appeal. But if your State Government
has prescribed an appeal fee, you can either move the relevant Information Commission or
your High Court to consider the same.

Disposal of Second Appeal: The RTI Act does not provide for any procedure to be followed
for deciding appeals. However, the Information Commissions must offer you an opportunity
to be heard before a decision on your 33 appeal is reached. In any appeal, it is the PIO who
needs to prove to the Appellate Authority that they made the right decision. Only if they
make a defensible case, should you be asked to explain why you think they are wrong.
Though the Act specifies time limit for providing information in case of first appeal by the
Public Information Officers, no such time limit has been set for second appeal before the
Commission. As per the data available, as on 26 January, 2016, at the Central Information
Commission, a total of 27682 appeals are pending. Similar will be the case for various State
Information Commissions. This makes the objectives of the Act defeated. The proposed
amendment seeks to put a time limit of ninety days for disposal of second appeals filed under
sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Act. 1. (1) This Act may be called the Right to
Information (Amendment) Act, 2016. (2) It shall come into force on such date as Central
Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint. 2. In the Right to
Information Act, 2005, in section 19, after sub-section (6), the following sub-section shall be
inserted, namely:— "(6A) The second appeal under sub-section (3) shall be disposed of
within ninety days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding
a total of one hundred and twenty days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for
reasons to be recorded in writing.

Proceedings Before Information Commissions: Proceedings before the Information

Commission are informal unlike court proceedings and you need not hire a lawyer to plead
your case before the Information Commission. Any person can assist you during the course
of hearing and it is not necessary that such person should be a legal practitioner. Usually, the
appellant appears in person and argues his case. He also has the liberty to appear through his
authorized representative or opt out of the course of hearings.

Burden of Proof: The burden of proof that the denial of a request was justified lies on the
person who wants to keep the information undisclosed, i.e, the PIO or a third party. In
practice, this means that you should only need to interact with the Commission after the
person who wants to withhold the information has first been questioned, because they are the
ones who have to show the Information Commission that they are right. If a hearing is then
organised, the PIO or third party arguing for secrecy needs to be called on to make their case
first. You will only need to make a case if the Commission thinks the PIO or third party has
a point worth considering. At that stage, you then need to argue in favour of disclosure.

Decision: If an Information Commission decides that your appeal was justified, he may pass
an order:

(a) Asking the public authority to take concrete steps towards meeting its duties under the
Act, for example, by providing access to the information you requested, by ordering
information be provided in a different form or by reducing the amount of fees you need to
pay;
(b) Ordering the public authority to compensate you for any loss you may have suffered in
the process;
(c) Imposing penalties on the PIO or any other official who failed in their duties under the
Act.
(d) If the Information Commission decides that your case is groundless, it will reject your
appeal and give you a notice of its decision to you and the public authority, which should
include any right of appeal.

Appeal To The Courts: The last point of appeal is, of course, the courts. The Right to
Information Act bars the courts from deciding any application, appeal or proceedings made
under the Act. However, this bar is not absolute as the right to information is a fundamental
constitutional right which implies that the High Court (under Article 226) and the Supreme
Court (under Article 32) have the power to look into all matters where such right is
infringed. In fact, several applicants, dissatisfied with the decision of the Information
commission, have taken their complaints to the High Courts of their respective state.
Numerous Public Interest Litigations have also been filed before the Supreme Court by RTI
Activists and NGOs for better enforcement of the right to information.

SECTION 19: APPEALS JUDICIAL REVIEW IN RTI ACT: Under the scheme of the
Act of 2005, it is clear that the orders of the commissions are subject to judicial review
before the High Court and then before the Supreme Court of India. In terms of Article 141 of
the constitution, the judgements of the Supreme court are law of the land and are binding on
all courts and tribunals. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the Information Commission is
bound by the law of precendence, i.e, judgements of the High Court and the Supreme Court
of India. In order to maintain judicial discipline and consistency in the functioning of the
Commission, we direct that Commission shall give appropriate attention to the doctrine of
precedence and shall not overlook the judgements of the courts dealing with the subject and
principles applicable, in a given case. [Namit Sharma Vs. Union of IndiaWP(Civil)no. 210 of
2012 SCC].

The obligation of the Public Authorities to provide information.

Chapter 2, Right To Information And Obligations Of Public Authorities Section 4,
Clauses 1 to 4.

1. General:

The citizens' right to know the facts, the true facts, about the administration of the country is
thus one of the pillars of a democratic State. And that is why the demand for openness in the
Government is increasingly growing in different parts of the world.- S.P. Gupta v. Union of
India, Under section 4 of the Act, obligations have been cast upon every public authority to
maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which
facilitates the right to information under this Act and publish particulars of its organisation,
etc., within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act and then at regular
intervals. The effect of the provisions and scheme of the Right to Information Act is to divide
'information' into the three categories. They are

(i) Information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every
public authority, disclosure of which may help in containing or discouraging corruption
(enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of Act).

(ii) Other information held by public authority (that is all information other than those falling
under clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of Act).

(iii) Information which is not held by or under the control of any public authority and which
cannot be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force. Section 3
of Act gives every citizen, the right to 'information' held by or under the control of a public
authority, which falls either under the first or second category. In regard to the information
falling under the first category, there is also a special responsibility upon public authorities to
suo moto publish and disseminate such information so that these will be easily and readily
accessible to the public without any need to access them by having recourse to section 6 of
Act. There is no such obligation to publish and disseminate the other information which falls
under the second category. The information falling under the first category, enumerated in
sections 4(1) (b) & (c) of Right to Information Act are extracted below:

"Section 4. Obligations of public authorities. -(1) Every public authority shall- (a) xxxxxx
(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act, -
(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;

(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;

(iii) the procedure followed in the decision-making process, including channels of

supervision and accountability;

(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;

(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or
used by its employees for discharging its functions;

(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;

(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by,
the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation
thereof;

(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or
more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether
meetings of those boards, councils, committee and other bodies are open to the public, or the
minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;

(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;

(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the
system of compensation as provided in its regulations;

(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed
expenditures and reports on disbursements made;

(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and
the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;

(xiii) particulars of recipients f concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;

(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held bit, reduced in an electronic
form;
(xv) 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;

(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;

(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update these publications
every year; (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing
the decisions which affect public; Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 4 of the Act relate
to dissemination: Authorities have to provide as much information suo motu to the public at
regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the
public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information. Dissemination
means making known or communication of information to the public through notice boards,
newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means,
including inspection of offices of any public authority. The material should be available in
electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, free or at a minimum cost.

The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests .One is to bring
about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of
public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice,
does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the
governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of
sensitive information. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)

2. Maintenance of Record: As per Clause 1(a) of section 4 of the Act, every public authority
shall maintain all its records Duly catalogued and indexed, All possible records are
computerised and Connected through a network all over the country on different systems.
Case: In the case of Paramveer Singh vs. Panjab University (CIC/OK/A/2006/00016, dated
15/6/06), the applicant had applied for information regarding the merit list for selection of
candidates to a particular post in the university. However, no proper information was
supplied to him due to the negligence of the university's PIO in identifying and collecting the
proper information. As a result, the applicant was given misleading information.

Judgment: The Commission held that every public authority, particularly after the
implementation of the Right to Information Act, must take all measures in pursuance of
Section 4(1)(a), to implement efficient record management systems in their offices so that the
requests for information can be dealt with promptly and accurately. In the above case, the
Commission further held, that the university should streamline its university record
management system in such a manner that information can be provided to the citizens
without any delay.

2. Publication of Particulars of Organization Etc.: Under section 4 of the Right to

Information Act, duty has been imposed upon every public authority to publish within one
hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act 17 items and thereafter update these
publications every year. The information which can be called 'public domain information'
required to be published under section 4 of the Right to Information Act, particularly that
concerning the organization, powers and duties of officers, etc., given in sub-clauses (i) to
(xvi) of sub-section 1(b) of section 4 of the Act must be computerized and connected through
a network throughout the country by every public authority. Several Ministries of
Government of India have published “proactive disclosure manual” on their websites. To-
day a person by visiting the website of the Supreme Court can get information regarding
pending cases. Even the cause lists of Supreme Court, High Courts and other Courts are
available on internet This had helped in achieving transparency and accountability. So every
public authority must devise means to provide all the “public domain proactive” information
to the public if not provided so far immediately as required under section 4 of the Act. Under
section 4(1) of the Right to Information Act, the obligations of public authorities are clearly
mentioned, which require inter alia that a directory of its officers and employees; and the
monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system
of compensation as, provided in regulations, under section 4(1)(ix) & (x), of the Right to
Information Act should be published and/or put on website.- S.J.S. Oberoi v. Punjab
National Bank, Zonal Office, Rudraprauag. As a public authority, the bank is required to
make pro-active disclosure of all the relevant information as per provisions under section
4(1) of the Right to Information Act, unless the same is exempt under the provisions of
section 8(1) of the Act. In fact, an information regime should be created so that citizens
would have easy access to information without making any formal request for it.- Appeal
No. 23/IC(A)/2006 as referred with approval in Shri Kishur J. Aggarwal v. UCO Bank,
Appeal No. 24/IC(A)/2006.
Record management system ought to be improved such that information which are to be
disclosed to public could be easily provided, after delineating the information that are
confidential or in the nature of trade secret. On the pretext of confidentiality of information,
a company should not deprive the citizens of their right to access information that could be
utilised for societal benefits.- Kishur J. Aggarwal v. Indian Renewable Energy
Development Agency Limited, Appeal No. 27/ IC(A)/2006. There is no provision in the
Right to Information Act to collect and recover from the information seekers the imputed
cost, i.e., the average salary and wages of the staff deployed for compiling and providing the
information, as they are on the pay-roll of the public authority which is under obligation to
provide information. And, most importantly, there are no norms and guidelines prescribed by
the Government for recovery of attributable expenditure on account of salaries and wages of
the concerned staff who are put on the job of providing information. The bank should not
have done what it has done in asking for payments towards the costs of compilation of
information. This is seemingly done merely to discourage the information seeker, which is
not consistent with the letter and spirit of the Right to Information Act. The bank was,
accordingly, directed to make suo motu disclosure of information without unduly burdening
the staff and sacrificing its normal activities or disproportionately diverting its resources, to
ensure transparency in its functioning. It should not arbitrarily charge for the costs that is not
prescribed by the Government- Kishur J. Aggarwal v. Corporation Bank, Appeal No.
23/IC(A)/2006. The outcome of the examination process should be put in public domain so
that the affected persons can have access to it. Mark sheets and model answers to the set
questions, if prepared, should be disclosed after the entire process is complete.- Parmod
Kumar Gupta v. Canara Bank, F. No. CIC/MA/ A/2006/00308 Section 4(1)(b)(xiii) of the
Right to Information Act mandates the public authority to disclose proactively the particulars
of the recipients of concessions etc. Thus when the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(HPCL), a public authority, is itself required by law to publish the details of all such
recipients, to treat the list of recipients, in this case, consumers of subsidised cooking gas, a
commercial confidence goes totally counter to the letter and spirit of the Right to
Information Act. Transparency demand that such information is routinely published in the
public domain so that no one needs to approach CPIO for seeking the information. Once
such information is placed in the public domain, the diversion of scarce cooking gas meant
for domestic consumers and provided at a great cost to the nation will become difficult as the
public would know about both classes of beneficiaries in advance and highlight any such
diversion noticed by them. Keeping this information secret and confidential is not at all in
the public interest nor in tune with the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the
provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the Act cannot be invoked to exempt the disclosure of the list
of consumers, both domestic and commercial- Kushi Ram v. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Lid., CIC/MA/ A/2009/000375-SM, decided on 4-1-2011. The authorities
discharging judicial functions are not covered under section 4 of the Right to Information
Act and, therefore, they are not obliged to provide any information to the applicant under the
provisions of the Right to Information Act in relation to the decisions taken by them. The
reason for excluding the authorities concerned with giving judicial decisions is quite
apparent. Judicial authorities are supposed to support their judicial decisions by giving
reasons for which they come to a particular conclusion. They are supposed to pass reasoned
orders to that the concerned party can know the reason for which he failed or succeeded and
the appellate authority can know the reasons for which a particular conclusion was arrived at.
Coming to the case on hand, the petitioner has filed an application under section 6 of the
Right to Information Act, seeking information from respondent No. 1. In the said
application, the petitioner has asked as to why certain documents and arguments were not
considered by the learned judge while considering the C.M.A. The application was nothing
but a memo of appeal, which could have been filed before the appellate court, but, instead of
approaching the appellate court, the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, had filed
an application under the Right to Information Act for knowing as to why the learned judge
had come to a particular conclusion, either by perusing or ignoring certain documents placed
on record of the said case. It has been held that there is no merit in the petition which is
rejected. - Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer, Ranga Reddy District Courts,
AIR 2009 AP 174 (177-78) (DB): 2009 (4) Andh LD 113. Also refer to AIR 2010 SC 615.

4. To Take Steps to Provide Suo Motu Information to Public on Regular Intervals: The
duty has been cast upon the public authorities to make constant endeavour to take all steps to
provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various
means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the
use of this Act to obtain information. Every information shall be disseminated widely and in
such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public. It should be borne in mind that
all materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration:

(a) the cost effectiveness,

(b) local language; and
(c) the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should
be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or
at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.

"Dissemination" shall mean making known or communicated the information to the public
through,-

(a) notice boards,

(b) newspapers,
(c) public announcements,
(d) media broadcasts,
(e) the internet, or
(f) any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. The proviso to
section 8(1) of the Act provides that the information, which cannot be denied to the
Parliament or a State Legislature, shall not be denied to any person. Moreover, section 8(2)
and 8(3) of the Act provide as under- "(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets
Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section
(1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure
outweighs the harm to the protected interests. (3) Subject to the provisions of Clauses (a), (c)
and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which
has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is
made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section." It
is now recognized that while a public servant may be subject to a duty of confidentiality, this
duty does not extend to remaining silent regarding corruption of other public servants.
Society is entitled to know and public interest is better served if corruption or mal-
administration is exposed.

5. Conclusion: Right to Information Act, 2005 recognizes the right of the citizen to secure
access to information under the control of public authority, in order to promote transparency
and accountability in the working of every public authority. Section 3 of the Act confers right
to information to all citizens and a corresponding obligation under section 4 on every public
authority to maintain the records so that the information sought for can be provided.
What information are exempted from disclosure? Refer to cases.

1. General

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India declares that all citizens shall have the right of
freedom of speech and expression, which right include right to receive information. Clause
(2) of Article 19, at the same time, provides restrictions and the State is free to make laws in
future imposing such restrictions. The grounds aforesaid are conceived in the interest of
ensuring and maintaining conditions in which the said right can meaningfully and peacefully
be exercised by the citizens of this country.- Secretary, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of West Bengal,' The right to
information guaranteed to the citizens of India under section 3 of the Right to Information
Act is subject to the provisions of this Act. Section 8 of the Right to Information Act set out
clearly the information which is exempted from disclosure under the Act.

2. Exemption from Disclosure of Information under the Act: Section 8 of the Act lays
down such exceptions where information shall not be supplied to the citizens by laying down
categorically that 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) (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;
(c) (c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament
or the State Legislature;
(d) (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) (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)
(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government; (g)
(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)
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or
prosecution of offenders; (i)
(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; j)
(j) 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 the disclosure of such information.

It is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the Right to Information Act. The Act
provides access to all information that is available and existing. Where the information
sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not
required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the
Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-
available information and then furnish it to an applicant. It is also not required to provide'
advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant. Under section 8 of the RTI Act there are ten categories of
information which are exempted from disclosure:

(1) Absolute Exemptions : Six categories described in clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (g) and (h)
carry absolute exemption.
(2) Conditional Exemptions: Three categories described in clauses (d), (e) and (j) carry
conditional exemption,
(3) Time limited Exemptions: One categories described in clause (i) relates to exemption for
a specific period with an obligation to make the said information public after such period.

Section 8(1)(a): It has been the convention to allow a lot of leeway to the Government
agencies in matters of claim of national security and strategic interests a stated in exemption
under section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act. At the same time, it is also expected
that the public authorities, who make these claims, do so after carefully studying the
documents, through proper application of mind and then coming to an irrefutable conclusion
about the matter being sensitive from the point of view of country' security interests.

Purulia Arms Drop case: Communication from the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs to the Government of West Bengal regarding entrusting the Purulia Arms Drop Case
to the CBI was through an open fax-message. The information which is handled through open
channels is potentially disclosable, and the public authorities ought to know this fact. The
respondents' plea for non-disclosure of this information from the Ministry of Home Affairs to
the State Government, on grounds of exemption under section 8(1)(a) must, therefore, fail.
The PIO is directed to supply to the appellant a copy of the fax-message of the Special
Secretary, MHA to the Government of West Bengal about entrusting the Purulia Arms Drop
case to the CBI, within 2 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.

(a) Information Contained in the Noting Portions of the Files: File notings are that part of
a file in which an officer records his observations and impressions meant for his immediate
superior officers. It is necessary to differentiate between files classified as confidential and
those not so classified. In case of an unclassified file the employee of a public authority
records his notes with full knowledge that these could be accessed at some stage by a larger
number of entities, and may even find it way into the public domain under certain given
circumstances. Information concerning 'noting portions' of the files shall have to be supplied
to the citizens under the Act. In the case of a file classified as confidential/ secret or top
secret, the fiduciary relationship between officers is underpinned by a certain trust as well as
a certain confidence that its contents shall not be accessed by anyone not authorised to access
them. Rules even provide punishment for possession of documents of classified files by
unauthorised entities. The trust that characterises file notings in the confidential files is thus
qualitatively different. The information contained in the notings of such classified files is
given by the officer, who is also the third party, in "confidence" as described under section
11(1) of the Right to Information Act. Section 11(1) and section 8(1)(e), unerringly point to a
conclusion that notings of a "confidential" file should be disclosed only after giving
opportunity to the third party, viz., the officer / officers writing those notes, to be heard.- . Dr.
RK. Garg v. Ministry of Home Affairs. Therefore it has been held by the Central Information
Commission that the file-notings in the case of files classified as confidential attract the
exemption of section 8(1)(j) of the Act; and if in a given case it is decided to disclose notings
of a confidential file, it has to be done only in terms of section 11(1) of the Right to
Information Act.- A.P. Sharma v Ministry of Defence
(b) Information for the Supply of which there are Specific Rules: Guidelines and rules
pertaining to scrutiny of writ petition etc., are available in Karnataka High Court Act and
Rules made thereunder. The said Act and Rules are available in the market. Under the Rules,
any person, who is a party or not a party to the proceedings, can obtain the orders of the High
Court as per the procedure prescribed in the Rules. It is not open for the respondent to ask for
copies of the same from the petitioner. As it is open for the respondent to obtain certified
copies of the order sheet in pending as well as the disposed of matters, the State Chief
Information Commissioner is not justified in directing the petitioner to furnish copies of the
same free of costs. If the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner is to be
implemented, then, it will lead to illegal demands. The State Information Commissioner
should have adverted to the High Court Rules before proceeding further. Since the impugned
order is illegal and arbitrary, the same is liable to be quashed and accordingly the order dated
14-5-2008 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission has been quashed.- State Public
Information Officer & Deputy Registrar, Karnataka v. N. Anbarasm.
(c) Information Including Commercial Confidence, Trade Secret, Intellectual Property
Etc. [Section 8(1)(d) of the Act]: There is no obligation to give information of 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. The Public Information Officer
will have to consider the following before giving information: (i) the objections raised by the
third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the information sought for; (ii) whether
the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or to wreak vendetta
against the third party and in deciding that, the profile of the person seeking information and
his credentials will have to be looked into and if the profile of the person seeking
information, in the light of other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that under
the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the
third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the information
solicited; and (iii) the Public Information Officer, while dealing with the information relating
to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become
a tool in the hands of a busy body to settle a personal score- Reliance Industries Limited v.
Gujarat State Information Commission.
(d) Information Available to a person in his Fiduciary Relationship [ Section 8(1)(e)]
CJI , Not a Fudiciary. CJI cannot be a fiduciary vis-a-vis Judges of the Supreme Court .
Judges of the Supreme Court hold independent office, and there is no hierarchy, in their
judicial functions, which places them at a different plane than the CJI. Declarations are not
furnished to the CJI in a private relationship or as a trust but in discharge of the constitutional
obligation to maintain higher standards and probity of judicial life and are in the larger public
interest . It cannot be held that the asset information shared with the CJI, by the Judges of the
Supreme Court, are held by him in the capacity of fiduciary, which if directed to be revealed,
would result in breach of such duty -.Section 8(e) does not cover asset declarations made by
Judges of the Supreme Court and held by the CJI - CJI does not hold such declarations in a
fiduciary capacity or relationship.[ Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash
Chandra Agarwal. High Court of Delhi, LPA No. 501/2009].
(e) Section 8(1)g: Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or
personal safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in
confidence. Information not to be disclosed if it endangers physical safety or human life.
The question that arises is as to the consequences that the interviewers or the members of the
interview board would be exposed to in the event their names and addresses or individual
marks given by them are directed to be disclosed. First, the members of the Board are likely
to be exposed to danger to their lives or physical safety. Secondly, it will hamper effective
performance and discharge of their duties as examiners. This is the information available with
the examining body in confidence with the interviewers. Declaration of collective marks to
the candidate is one thing and that, in fact, has been permitted by the authorities as well as the
High Court. There is no error of jurisdiction or reasoning in this regard. But direction to
furnish the names and addresses of the interviewers would certainly be opposed to the very
spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act. [Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain
Abbas Rizwi and Anr.(2012) 13 SCC 61]
(f) Section 8(1)h: Information which would impede the process of investigation or
apprehension or prosecution of offenders. No disclosure in case of pending trial [Sec.
8(1)(h) of the RTI Act]: Case: In the case of Ashok Agarwal, Jt. Commissioner of Income
Tax vs. Department of Revenue (Appeal No.01/IC (A)/2006, dated 16/02/2006), the applicant
asked for certified copies of files relating to the prosecution proceedings against him, under
Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005. Judgment: The Commission said that since the matter is sub-
judice (in trial before a court of law), there is a due process of law under which the appellant
may obtain the documents to defend himself in his case before the trial court. The
Commission rejected his appeal to obtain the documents from the public authority, and held
that since the matter is under investigation, the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) would apply
(g) Information Which Relates to Personal Information the disclosure of Which has no
Relationship to any Public Activity or interest or Which Would Cause Invasion of the
Privacy of an Individual (Section 8(1)(j) of the Act): In order to qualify for the exemption
contained in section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, the information sought must
satisfy the following criteria:

(a) The information sought must be personal in nature- The adjective 'personal' may be
ascribed to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an institution, organisation
or a corporate-
(b) Various public authorities while performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal
information' from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. Public activities include
situations wherein a person gives information about himself to a public authority as an
employee, or asks for permission, licence or authorisation etc.
(c) The disclosure of the information would lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of
the individual. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. Where the State
routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public
activity, and will not be an intrusion on privacy. Personal information such as marital status,
name of spouse, name of the passport-holder figuring as parent/ guardian in any minor's
passport, residential address, details of cases pending against passport holder are exempted
from disclosure under section 8 of the Right to Information Act.- Union of India through
Ministry of External Affairs v. Rajesh Bhatia. The passport number and the date of issue and
expiry of passport can be provided under the Right to Information Act. However, the birth
certificate of the passport holder as well as documents of his education and documents
submitted by him as proof of residential address are personal information which cannot be
supplied under section 8 of the Right to Information Act.- Union of India V Anitha Singh.

3. Information in respect of Individual Officers Public Duty: The information sought is

not personal information but it pertains to individual CBI officers in respect of their pubic
duty. Therefore the CBI has been directed to supply such information. The reluctance of the
CBI to supply the requisite information is palpable. The exemption claimed under section 8 is
unjustified and has no bearing on the information required.
4. Right to Information Act vis-a-vis Official Secrets Act: Section 8(2) Section 8(2) of the
Right to Information Act lays down as under:- "Notwithstanding anything in the Official
Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with
sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in
disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests." The Official Secrets Act, 1923,
imposes restrictions on the right to information in India, but, in view of section 8(2) of the
Right to Information Act, a public authority has the right to allow access to information even
in respect of the activities covered by the Official Secrets Act; provided public authority is of
the opinion that public interest in disclosure of the said information outweighs the harm to the
protected interests. Moreover section 23 of the Right to Information Act lays down that the
provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Official
Secrets Act, 1923 or any other law for the time being in force.
5. Information Relating to any Occurrence, Event or Matter which has Taken Place,
Occurred or Happened Twenty Years from the Date of Application to be Supplied -
Section 8(3): According to sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Right to Information Act, any
information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or
happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be
provided to any person making a request under that section subject, of course, to the
provisions of Clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub- section (1) of section 8 of the Act. It is further
provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty
years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final. The Right to
Information Act which obliges the public authority to retain information relating to any
occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before
the date on which any request is made under section 6 thereof shall be provided to a person,
should not be construed in a manner so as to oblige the public authorities to retain the answer
scripts for any days in excess of the period mentioned in the relevant regulations for
preservation thereof, because preserving answer scripts of lakhs of examinees who take such
public examinations conducted by the University, the West Bengal Board of Secondary
Education and the Central Board of Secondary Education each year for twenty years would
work out immense hardship and palpable injustice to them and a meek and mute submission
to the plainness of the language has to be avoided to prevent unworkable and undesirable
results.- University of Calcutta v. Pritam Rooj What section 8(3) stipulates is that, the
exemption under section 8(1) cannot be applied if the information sought related to a period
prior to 20 years except those covered in section Clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section 8(1).
In other words, even if the information sought is exempt in terms of other sub-classes of sub-
section (1) of section 8, and if the same relates to a period 20 years prior to the date of
application, then the same shall be provided. In the present case, since part of the information
sought, even though related to a period prior to 20 years, relates to notifications, DGS&D is
bound to furnish the same, if the same is available with it.- S.R. Pershad v. Directorate
General of Supplies and Disposals

Conclusion: The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as
harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about
transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of
public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual
practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of
the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of
confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the
object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interests. While sections 3 and 4 of
the Right to Information Act seek to achieve the first objective, sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of
the Act seek to achieve the second objective.

Define 'Information' and 'Right to Information'.

Chapter 1, Preliminary Section 2. Definitions. Information 2(f) "information" means any

material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, 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;

1. All information held by Public Authorities is owned by citizens, who are sovereign:
The Legislature's intent is to make available to the general public such information which
had been obtained by the public authorities from private bodies. Had it been the case where
only information related to public authorities was to be provided, the Legislature would not
have included the word "private body". The people of this country have a right to know
every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their functionaries. 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. (Reserve Bank Of India and Ors V
Jayantilal N. Misty and Ors A.I.R 1982 SC149).
2. Draft Judgment and personal notes of Judges, not to be an information: Notes taken
by the Judges while hearing a case cannot be treated as final views expressed by them on the
case. They are meant only for the use of the Judges and cannot be held to be a part of a
record “held” by the public authority.(Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs.
Subhash Chandra Agarwal. High Court of Delhi, LPA No. 501/200).
3. Information regarding personal assets of Judges of High Courts: Judges have to
declare their assets is a requirement that is not being introduced for the first time as far as
subordinate Judges are concerned. They have for long been required to do that year after
year in terms of the Rules governing their conditions of service. If declaration of assets by a
subordinate judicial officer is seen as essential to enforce accountability at that level, then the
need for such declaration by Judges of the constitutional courts is even greater. The
introduction of the stipulation of declaring personal assets, is to be seen as an essential
ingredient of contemporary accepted behaviour and established convention. So, Asset
declaration by Judges - In absence of any specific exclusion, asset declarations by the Judges
held by the CJI or the CJs of the High Courts as the case may be, are "information" under
Section 2(f).(Secretary General, Supreme Court of IndiaVs.Subhash Chandra Agarwal, High
Court of Delhi, LPA No. 501/2009).
4. Information sought should be clearly specified: Case: In the case of S.K. Ranga vs.
Container Corporation of India Ltd. (Appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00260, dated 2/1/2007),
the applicant had asked for inspection of all Dak registers of the Corporation from 1/1/2003
onwards, pertaining to various departments, i.e., HRD, Vigilance, MD's office, as well as the
General Dak Register.

Judgment: The CIC noted that the information asked by the appellant from the public
authority was vague. The Commission held that the applicant under the RTI Act should
clearly specify the information sought in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant
was directed to specify the information he seeks to inspect from the records

5. Information can be supplied only in the form available: Case: In the case of Sarabjit
Roy vs. Delhi Development Authority (10/01/2005-CIC, dated 25/2/2006), the applicant had
sought certain information in a particular form, from the PIO of a public authority.
Judgment: The Commission held that if the information is not available in the particular
form requested, it does not have to be created in the form sought by the applicant, and
information under Section 2(f) includes information in any form available with a public
authority and accessible. In the present case, the Commission held that the applicant may be
allowed, if he desires, to inspect the original records at the office. Information specifically
asked may be provided in the form of printouts and certified photocopies of original
documents and records.
6. Language for providing information: Case: In the case of Jai Kumar Jain vs. Delhi
Development Authority (Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00117, dated 7/3/2006), the appellant
had applied for some information from the public authority, Delhi Development Authority
(DDA), in respect of certain shops leased by the Authority. The appellant had sought this
information in the Hindi language. Judgment: The CIC interpreting Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act, directed the DDA to provide the requested information by translating it, in Hindi, within
25 days of the issue of its decision.

Section 2(J): Right To Information (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;

Information which relates to personal information:

1. The confidentiality required to be maintained of the medical records of a patient

including a convict considering the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India
cannot override the provisions of the Right to Information Act: Information that cannot
be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature should not be denied to any person. Section
8(j) Information can be denied only in rare and in exceptional cases with valid reasons
recorded in writing. A Test in such a matter is always between the private rights of a citizen
and of the third person. Regulations cannot override the provisions of the Information Act In
case of inconsistency between the Regulations and the Information Act, the later would
prevail and the information will have to be made available as per the Act Act however,
carves out exceptions, including the release of personal information, disclosure of which has
no relationship to any public activity or interest In such cases a discretion has been conferred
on the concerned Public Information Officer to make available such information, which to be
exercised according to the facts of each case Records of a person sentenced or convicted and
admitted in hospital during such period should be made available to the person seeking
information provided such hospital is maintained by the State or Public Authority (Mr.
Surupsingh Hrya NaikVs.State of Maharashtra through Additional Secretary, General
Administration Deptt. and Ors. Writ Petition No. 1750 of 2007, Bombay HC).
2. Significance of word "HELD BY" used Section 2(j): The expression 'Held by' or 'Under
the control of any public authority' in relation to 'information' means that information which
is held by the public authority under its control to the exclusion of others. It is not
information which the public authority has already 'Let go', i.e. shared generally with the
citizens. It is not also that information, in respect of which there is statutory mechanism
evolved which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following
the prescribed procedure, and upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. [Registrar of
Companies & Os. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr.( W.P.(C) 11271/2009) High Court
Delhi].
3. Information which relates to expired records cannot be provided [Sec. 2(j) of the RTI
Act]: Case: In the case of Gurbachan Singh vs. Lt. General, Army Headquarters
(CIC/AT/2006/20, dated 23/3/2006), the applicant had sought certain information regarding
the copy of an order pertaining to the appointment and chargesheeting of an army personnel,
and the information sought was supposed to be more than 20 years old. Judgment: The
Army, the public authority involved in this case, refused to provide the appellant with the
required information and said that they could not provide such old information as according
to their departmental rules for preservation of records, the maximum period for preservation
of records was only 10 years. The CIC noted in the appeal before it held that, in this case,
records of the court martial trial were destroyed after a retention period of 10 years under the
Army Rules. It held that there was no obligation on the part of any public authority to
provide non-existent information in terms of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act if that information is
no longer available due to the fact that the records were not available, i.e., they have been
destroyed after a maximum period of preservation, as per the departmental rules for
destruction of old records.