THE INDIAN RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 SUCCESSES

THE INDIAN RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OVER THE LAST DECADE

INTRODUCTION – WHAT IS RTI? Right available to the general public to demand information from the duty-bound Government and/or private bodies. Provided to citizens through the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005. Not constitutionally protected in direct expression, but has been read into various fundamental rights by the Supreme Court of India. Forms a crucial part of the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Finds place in various international conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Has gained phenomenal importance as a tool for ensuring and promoting transparency and accountability on a widespread level.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACT First RTI law developed by Sweden in 1766. Followed after two decades by the US (1966), Norway (1970), France and Netherlands (1978), Australia, New Zealand Canada (1982), Denmark (1985), Greece (1986), Austria (1987) and Italy (1990). Idea of RTI in India brainchild of former PM, V. P. Singh in 1990. First grassroots campaign for the introduction of RTI started by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in 1994. National Campaign for People’s RTI – Formed in 1996; formulated initial draft of RTI law for the Government. Tamil Nadu became first Indian state to pass RTI law in 1997. Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2002 passed. Could not be implemented. Bill for current RTI Act passed on recommendations of National Advisory Council (NAC) in May

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE RTI ACT, 2005 “Information” (§ 2(f)) – Any material in any form, including electronic form, accessible by a public authority under any law in force. Easy procedure for filing of RTI application to Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned public authority (§§ 6, 7). Duty of public authority to comply with specified time period for disclosure of information (§ 7(6)). Penalty for non-disclosure of information - ₹ 250 per day till application is received or information is furnished, maximum penalty being ₹ 25000 (§ 20(1)). Duties of public authorities: To maintain duly catalogued and indexed records relating to the requisite or concerned information, in computerised form within reasonable time (§ 4(1)(a)). Proactive disclosure of particular information of public authorities encouraged (§ 4(1)(b)).

Certain types of information exempted from disclosure by public authorities, including information relating to trade secrets, commercial confidence, national integrity and sovereignty, and third party incidents (§ 8(1)). Can be declared open for disclosure if the public interest outweighs the harm to the protected interests (§ 8(2)). Opportunity to be given to third party about request for information related to it, as well as any objection raised in this regard (§ 11(1)). Appeals to be made first to First Appellate Authority (FAA), and subsequently, to the Central Information Commission (CIC) for central authorities, or State Information Commission (SIC) for State ones (§ 19). Alternative remedy – Direct complaint to CIC/SIC if decision passed by the PIO relating to concerned information not satisfactorily.

SUCCESS STORIES OF THE INDIAN RTI ACT Chandigarh – Smoke Free City Fair Price Shops in Kalol Hemant Ghosh – Head of NGO called Kerosene supplied in Panchmahal district of ‘Burning Brain Society’. Over 300 RTI queries sent to P&H Govt. Gujarat according to the whims and fancies of the ration-shop owners. relating to how the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 had been implemented in the shared capital of Chandigarh. Application filed by one Mohanbhai directly In response, around 1800 warning boards to RTI application, with the amount of kerosene supplied getting increased, along with the time for distribution. appeared through the city in 2007, with Chandigarh becoming the first smoke-free city in India. before the District Supply Officer (DSO), who dismissed the complaint on wrong grounds. Correct information gathered through answer

FAILURES OF THE ACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Poor record-keeping practices. Lack of infrastructure. Dilution of supplementary laws such as those for whistle-blower protection. Extremely limited awareness among people. Recommendations and suggestions: Creation of RTI Implementation Cell by both Central and State Governments. Reduction in scope of the information exempted from disclosure under § 8 of the Act, both by the Parliament as well as the Courts, the Supreme Court in particular. Awareness of the availability as well as benefits of RTI to the public at large, through advertisements or mandatory trainings and workshops.

THANK YOU! SUBMITTED BY: PARIEKH PANDEY (NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PUNJAB)