|
| Right to Information |
| (Author: Advocate Sachin Gupta) |
The present is the age of information explosion. Information is knowledge. Information is power. Secrecy is the bulwark of inefficient and corrupt administration while transparency is the hallmark of honest and efficient administration. Democratic government requires openness and transparency in governance of the country. It is the basis of the demand of information justice. Freedom of information is the oxygen of democracy.
The Right to Information Act 2005 is a law enacted by the Parliament of India giving citizens of India access to records of Central Government and State Governments . The Act applies to all States and Union Territories of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir - which is covered under a State-level law. Private bodies are not within the Act's ambit directly. However, information that can be accessed under any other law in force by a public authority can also be requested for. In a landmark decision of 30-Nov-2006 ('Sarbajit Roy versus DERC') the Central Information Commission also reaffirmed that privatised public utility companies continue to be within the RTI Act- their privatisation notwithstanding. The Act also explicitly overrides the Official Secrets Act and other laws in force on 15-June-2005 to the extent of any inconsistency.
Under the provisions of the Act, any citizen (including the citizens within J&K) may request information from a "public authority" (a body of Government or "instrumentality of State") which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The Act also requires every public authority to computerise their records for wide dissemination and to proactively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally.
Since June 2005, when Right to Information Act, was passed, it has been hailed as the hallmark of democracy for the reasons that it purports to make, as regards government information, disclosure the norm and secrecy as the exception. Experts feel that as the Act aims at making the government transparent and more accountable, the effective use of it would, in a long run, curb corruption much like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the United States, the RTI sets out procedures for citizens to "secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority."
To begin with a snapshot of the Act's structure, basically, the RTI allows for citizens to make initial requests for information to designated officers located in the relevant government authorities. If the request is denied or the citizen receives no response, he can appeal to the information officer's superior and/or the information commissions established by the RTI, which have been given the rather Orwellian names of the "Central Information Commission" and "State Information Commissions," respectively. If the citizen does not receive a response within thirty days, the public authority can be fined, although the amount of the fine is capped.
One of the RTI's main strengths is its definition of "information," which is broadly defined as "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 law for the time being in force." This definition turned out to be too broad for some politicians in 2005, officials floated a possible amendment to the RTI that would have excluded handwritten notes from the Act, but the public outcry was so intense that the proposed amendment was discarded.
Under the Act, all complying departments must appoint their Public Information Officer (PIO). Any citizen of India may submit a request to the PIO for information in any format, paper or electronic. It is the PIO's responsibility to ensure that the information is obtained from the appropriate department or section. If the request pertains to another public authority (in whole or part) it is the PIO's responsibility to transfer/forward the concerned portions of the request to a PIO of the other within 5 days. In addition, every public authority is required to designate Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) to receive RTI requests and appeals for forwarding to the PIOs of their public authority.The citizen making the request is not obliged to explain why the information is needed.
The Act specifies following time limits for replying to the request:
- If the request has been made to the PIO, compliance is expected within 30 days of receipt.
- If the request has been made to an APIO, compliance is expected within 35 days of receipt. This is allowed, only of the APIO transfers the application to another Public Authority. If the APIO and the PIO are of the same Public Authority, irregardless of the distances involved, the compliance is expected within 30 days of receipt.
- If the PIO transfers the request to some other public authority (better concerned with the information requested), the time allowed to reply is 30 days but computed from the day after it is received by the PIO of the transferee authority.
- Information about Human Rights violations by Security agencies (of only those listed in the Second Schedule) is to be provided within 45 days but with the prior approval of the Central Information Commission.
However, in any of the above cases, if life or liberty is involved, the PIO has to reply within 48 hours.
Since the information is to be paid for, the time between the reply of the PIO and the time taken to deposit the further fees for information is excluded from the time allowed.
If information is not provided within this period, it is treated as deemed refusal. Refusal with or without reasons may be ground for appeal. Further, once the period has transgressed, the information has to be provided free of charge.
|
|
|
The following information is exempt from disclosure:
|
- 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
- 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;
- information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
- 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;
- 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;
- information received in confidence from foreign Government;
- 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;
- information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
- cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers;
- 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 (but it is also provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied by this exemption);
|
|
|
