Traditional GK

Table of Contents

1. Background
2. Meaning
3. Scope
4. Governance and procedure
5. Objectives of the RTI Act
6. The controversies
7. Criticisms faced by RTI Act
8. Suggestions to address the limitations of RTI Act
9. FAQs

Background

The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a law passed by the Indian Parliament that explains how people can get the information they need. It took the place of the Freedom of Information Act of 2002. The Right to Information (RTI) Act says that any Indian person can ask a "public authority" (a government body or an "instrumentality of state") for information, and that authority has thirty days to respond. If it has to do with a petitioner's life and freedom, the information has to be given within 48 hours. The Act also says that all public authorities must computerize their records so that they can be shared widely and make certain types of information available to the public so that people only have to go through a few steps to officially ask for information.

The Indian Parliament passed the RTI Bill on June 15, 2005, and it became law on October 12, 2005 of that year. Over 4,800 RTI requests are sent in every day, on average. Over 17,500,000 forms were sent in in the first ten years after the act was made law. Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution grants a basic right—that of information access.

Though not listed as a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution, Right to Information safeguards the fundamental rights to Freedom of Expression and Speech under Article 19(1)(a) and Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 assured by the Constitution. Public authorities are those under the RTI Act 2005. Deciding on the application and appeal accordingly, the Public Information Officer (PIO) or the First Appellate Authority of the public authority functions quasi-judigurally. This legislation was passed to unite the basic freedom of speech guaranteed in the Indian constitution. RTI is an inferred fundamental right since Article 19 of the Indian Constitution implicitly reflects RTI in the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Seeking to change Sections 13, 16, and 27 of the RTI Act, the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 Section 13 of the original Act specifies five years (or until the age of 65, whichever is earliest) as the tenure of the central Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners. At last in Ashwanee K. Singh's lawsuit on September 20, 2020, it is clear that right to information is a basic one.

Meaning

The act is among the most significant ones empowering common people to challenge the government and its policies. Media and people have extensively applied this to expose corruption, government performance improvement, information on spending, etc.

The Right to Information Act's main objectives are to empower people, advance openness and responsibility in government activities, fight corruption, and enable our democracy to really run for the people. An informed citizen is obviously more suited to keep a required watch on governance tools and hold the government liable to the governed. The Act is a major step towards enlightening people on government actions.

The statute covers all constitutional authorities, agencies owned and controlled, as well as those companies heavily sponsored by the government. The legislation also requires public authorities of union government or state government to react promptly to the demands for information from the people.

Scope

The Act covers India all around. It covers all the constitutional authorities—executive, legislative, judicial; any organization or entity created or established by a state legislature or Parliament. The Act also specifies bodies or authorities established or constituted by order or notification of suitable government including bodies "owned, controlled or substantially financed" by government, or non-Government organizations "substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds".

Any information the government can provide to the parliament, the people can ask for from the government authorities. RTI does not cover some information that could compromise India's integrity or sovereignty. RTI does not apply to information on internal security, foreign policy, intellectual property rights (IPR), cabinet talks.

1. Private entities:
   The act does not cover private bodies. The Central Information Commission further confirmed in a ruling in Sarbjit Roy v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission that privatised public utility firms are under RTI's jurisdiction. The Act covers private institutions and NGOs obtaining over 95% of their infrastructure funding from the government as of 2014.
2.  Political organizations:
   Under the RTI Act, the political parties are public authorities who liable to citizens, according the Central Information Commission (CIC). According to the CIC, eight national parties— Congress, BJP, NCP, CPI(M), CPI, BSP, NPP and AITC—have public authority under the RTI Act and have been essentially sponsored indirectly by the Central Government. But the administration unveiled a Right To Information (Amendment) Bill in August 2013 that would exclude political parties from the purview of the statute. Although a case has been filed to bring all political parties under the RTI Act, no parties are now registered under it.

Governance and procedure

Two main bodies control Indian people's right to information:

1. Heading all the central departments and ministries, the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) oversees their own public information officers (PIO). Direct under the President of India are CICs.
2. Head over all the state departments and ministries, State Information Commissions – State Public Information Officers. Direct beneath the relevant State Governor is the SPIO office.
The Central Information Commission has no jurisdiction over the autonomous agencies known as State Information Commissions.

Objectives of the RTI Act

1. Let people challenge the government.
2. The law advances responsibility and openness in government operations.
3. The act also supports greater work for the people and helps to contain governmental misconduct.
4. The legislation aims to produce educated people who would maintain required vigilance concerning the operation of government equipment.

The controversies
India's Right to Information has been the subject of many controversies, ranging from its use in political fights (for example, when political opponents' educational credentials were asked for) to cases of outright refusals to give information on high-profile projects to claims that it was abused by civil society. It was harder for people to get information because the government was against RTI.

In over 310 cases across India, people were attacked, physically or mentally harassed, or had their property damaged because they were asking for information under RTI, according to statistics from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). Over fifty alleged killings and two suicides are linked directly to RTI requests in the data. RTI Act 2005 covers both the national government and the state governments. Also included are the actions and roles of the public officials.

Protection methods suggested include:
To make sure that threats or attacks against RTI activists are recorded right away on the First Information Report, and that these reports are brought to the attention of the local magistrate or judge within 24 hours so that they can be protected along with their families, and these safety measures must be reviewed on a regular basis.
We use RTI and gain from it, and the investigation into threats or attacks by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police must be finished within 90 days.

Rights for intellectual property:
Many members of civil society have lately claimed that the government agencies periodically violate the freedom to information Act by using an intellectual property rights argument.

Most important are:

Information rejected by RBI on Demonetization rejected citing Intellectual Property Laws.
Denied right to information by Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department following more than eight months of waiting on under construction Gomti Riverfront Development Project. Researchers asked for environmental impact and project reports on a project marked for negative effects, tax money waste by environmental scientists and studies.

Banished those from submitting RTIs
Ten persons were barred from submitting RTI inquiries by Gujarat State Information Commission, which claimed they were "harassing government officials" by submitting several inquiries with "malafide intentions". Noting NGO Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel, who also pointed out that no clause in the statute permitted the blacklisting of applicants, this was the first time a prohibition on RTI inquiries took place in Gujarat.

Criticisms faced by RTI Act 2005

The public and social activists have criticized the RTI Act for having a few provisions that have been twisted and molded so as to avoid providing information related to government offices to information seekers directly. Instead, information is being concealed behind a virtual layer of national security and the designation "not public authority" within the Act's scope. For example, the PM CARES fund was declared to be "not a public authority," and the information sought by an information seeker was denied, with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) stating that the PM CARES Fund is not covered by Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

As stated in Section 8, there are exceptions for some information as well that will not be required. Information that could jeopardize legal proceedings or police investigations is included, as are those that are specifically prohibited by a court of law or tribunal, the disclosure of which would constitute contempt of court, information that would jeopardize someone's life or physical safety, information that would identify the source of information or assistance provided in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes, and Cabinet papers are exempt from the Act.

 1. the File Notings Controversy

Furthermore, a crucial element of RTI is file noting, which increases fundamental bureaucratic transparency. File noting is the practice of making notes in official government files that include the written, discussed, and ultimately decided upon or rejected opinions. The majority of discussions on the topic are documented in the note sheets, and the recordings in the note sheets serve as the primary basis for choices. Typically, these recordings are referred to as "file noting." File noting provides information on file movement, user access, and the timeline of the decision-making process. The government is required by the disclosure of file noting to adhere closely to the business's rules and regulations as well as the standards established during the decision-making process. In other words, file noting is the framework for governance or the lens through which governance flaws can be investigated.

The RTI Act's removal of file notes that are directly relevant to the advancement of social and rural welfare from its jurisdiction was the subject of intense criticism. As a result, the decision to exclude file notations from the RTI Act's jurisdiction drew a lot of criticism and led to the question, "What does information mean?" Following a protracted debate, the Indian government attempted to change the Act in less than a year. The aim of the Act was rendered meaningless by the modification that exempted files and notes.

Nonetheless, the Central Information Commission (CIC) resolved the file noting dispute with a ruling that made it abundantly evident that file noting is covered by the definitions of "information" and "record." In an attempt to make clear that "Government has remained committed to the principles of great transparency and accountability in the public decision-making process," the Prime Minister's Office released a press release on July 26, 2006. The press release further revealed that the Union Cabinet has approved the revision to Section 2(i)(a) of the Act, which stipulates that a file note of all government plans, initiatives, and programs related to development and social issues must be provided.

 2. The thin line between private and public information

While attempting to distinguish between the right to privacy and the right to know, the Act appears to fall short of what was intended when it was put into place. Only information that is under the purview of the RTI Act was guaranteed, including material that appears to be private but is actually public in nature and certain "private" information that we need to know. The private information in question pertains to matters that have the potential to impact governance and, in turn, the general public. The public structure, governance, and administration in India are directly impacted by the close relationships that nearly all politicians and bureaucrats have with large businessmen.

Therefore, in order to fulfill the RTI Act's primary goal of promoting accountability and openness in government, it is necessary to close the loophole that exempts them from its provisions. Despite having public finances and the public welfare as its goal, the PM CARES fund is a good illustration of how certain information can be rendered private (Jebaraj, 2020). Corrupt politicians and bureaucrats use this shaping and manipulation of public and private information as a safe refuge to limit all the unethical and corrupt agreements.

3. Lack of Government role in educating people about RTI

Apart from the aforementioned shortcomings in the execution of the Act, there are several other aspects that lead to criticism of the Act. According to poll data released by "statista" on October 16, 2020, over 40% of individuals in certain Indian states are still unaware of their right to access information from public agencies.

The government places little emphasis on informing and enlightening the public about their right to information access, despite this being a crucial freedom for a nation the size of India. The Act also seems to reinforce the government official's position of control, as they are still endowed with a great deal of discretionary ability to withhold information. All citizens do, however, generally agree that certain information about security, foreign policy, law enforcement, and public safety should not be disclosed to the general public.

4. Inadequacies PIOs, APIOs and the commission

The Right to Information Act's shortcomings are clearly evident in the way it has been implemented. Generally speaking, public bodies do not appropriately post information concerning RTI on departmental websites or on notice boards within relevant departments. Furthermore, the offices of Public Information Officers (PIOs) and Assistant PIOs lack nameplates. The Act makes no mention of any measure that would expedite the process of identifying PIOs and APIOs and save information seekers time. The majority of PIOs lack the necessary training to handle RTI petitions. Under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, PIOs at the district level pass the application to the appropriate authority rather than refusing to provide information if it is not directly related to their office.

The delivery of the application's response is delayed as a result of this. If the information is not delivered during the 30-day period, the commission is required to impose a penalty under Section Twenty. The procedure of filing two appeals before contacting the commission in cases where information is withheld without a valid reason or where information is withheld on purpose with unfair intent is excessively time-consuming and utterly undermines the purpose of the RTI Act. In this particular scenario, government personnel lack fear due to the lack of strict execution of the Act.

Suggestions to address the limitations of RTI Act
A few ideas can be implemented to increase the RTI Act's viability:

1. All applications and certified photocopies should have the same cost across the nation, and no extraneous documents should be added to the application to create a large expense that would scare away information seekers.
2. The Act should be changed to restrict the ability of state governments and other appropriate authorities to make changes. In addition, the amendment should mandate that all departments display PIOs' and APIOs' names, the Appealing Authority's name, the Mode of Fee Payment, and other information in the clearest possible way so that everyone in society can understand it.
3. The Act needs to be aggressively enforced by the Commission, particularly in cases when PIOs miss deadlines. In order to avoid violating a citizen's fundamental right to information refusal, purposeful delays and the provision of inappropriate information must be met with severe sanctions.
4. Rather than having two appeals pending, there should just be one appeal to facilitate the lengthy process of getting to the commission in the event that the PIO side purposefully rejects the appeal.
5. The public is eventually impacted by making that material public, with the exception of extremely sensitive information that may jeopardize national security.
6. The rate at which complaints are resolved ought to be the main priority. As instructed by the Honorable Supreme Court, more positions should be created and officers hired to hear appeals and complaints at the Commission level. (2020, Bhatranagar)
7. Given the high percentage of the population that is clueless, as was previously mentioned, regular awareness campaigns, or nukkad nataks, ought to be conducted in order to reach every member of the democratic community and enable them to fully exercise their rights.
8. Considering the diversity of our nation, India, all material pertaining to the RTI Act and how it operates must be made available in the local tongue.
9. As part of our new education strategy, instruction concerning the right to information and the right to know should be made essential at the school level in order to instill in the next generation a feeling of civic duty and responsibility.
10. To reduce PIOs' reluctance, technology should be used for tracking, locating, paying fees (not everyone has access to digital banking services), and delivering information. A photo of a postal order that has been signed and acknowledged by the postmaster can be sent through an application as an attachment or through instant messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, etc.

FAQs

1. Are the NGOs and other private organisations come under the RTI Act?

Ans. Yes, they do.

2. When was the latest amendment of the RTI Act 2005?

Ans. The latest amendment was done in 2019.

3. Can anyone access information under the RTI Act?

Ans. Yes, any citizen can access information under the provision of RTI Act.