Critical evaluation of Right to information Act, 2005

Critical evaluation of Right to information Act, 2005.

Twenty first century is an era of globalization; it means free trade, commerce and free flow of
information. A revolutionary invention in the science and technology has brought information at
the doors of people across the globe. Electronic and non-electronic print media by making use of
technology has become vibrant. Bill Gates small, efficient and cost effective computer and
Googles search engine of website has made the availability of information at the fingertip of
every person. Julian Assange, Editor-in-Chief of Wikileaks, who uploaded the most guarded
classified secretive documents thousands together of Pangtons of USA in the cable internet has
stunned the entire world and proved the information, is vital and most valuable for the just
society.[1]Doctrine of Secrecy of Information has limited place in the 21 st centurys open society.
Arab World is marching towards democracy after witnessing uprising waves of protestation
against their rulers. Democracy rests on good governance found on transparency, openness and
accountability. Former U.S President Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address on Thursday
19 1863, which is most well known speech in USA history after civil war, said democracy means
government of the people by the people for the people.[2] Speaking on the importance of
information in the democratic form of government, the father of the American Constitution and
former US President, James Madison said
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and people who mean to be their own governors, must
arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular
information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps
both.[3]
Democracy and non-transparency of Government cannot co-exist. Functions of Government are
to be hidden from public gaze, it would certainly tend to encourage corruption, oppression and
even misuse or abuse of the authority.[4] Jeremy Bentham said, Secrecy, being an instrument of
conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government.[5] Right to Information is
extension form of Fundamental Right of Freedom of Expression and Speech. It is difficult to
define human rights because it depends upon the cultural background, legal system, ideology and
economic, social and political conditions of different States. Justice Mathew in his vivid
constitutional and juristic mind in case of Keshvananda Bharathi v. State of Kerala,[6] said,
Fundamental Rights themselves have no fixed contents, most of them are empty vessels into
which each generation must pour its contents in the light of its experience. There is an exciting
global trend towards recognition of the right to information by States, inter-governmental
organizations, civil society and the people. On December 1948, the General Assembly adopted
Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Article 19 refers to right to
information.[7]The General Assembly on December 16, 1966 adopted the International
Covenants on Civil and Political Rights of which Article 19 talks about right to information[8].
Articles 13 of American Convention on Human Rights acknowledge the right to information.
Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom of expression and
information.
Indian Constitution.
There is no Article in the Indian Constitution that explicitly mentioned the right to information.
Nevertheless, various Articles of the Constitution make inference that the right to information is
implicit. Article 19[1] [a] and 21 provides room for the accommodation of right to information.
Article 19[1] [a] says that all citizen of India shall have the right to freedom of speech and

expression. Right to freedom of speech is nothing but right to information that is basic amenity
of civilized society, which has four board special purposes to serve.[9] One, it helps an individual
to attain self-fulfillment. Second, it assists in the discovery of truth. Third, it strengthens the
capacity of an individual in participating in decision-making. Fourth, it provides a stability and
social change. The march of law towards securing freedom of information explicitly under
Article 19[1][a] began with case of S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others.
[10]Justice Bhagawati observed that The concept of an open government is the direct emanation
form right to know which is seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression
guaranteed under the Article 19[1][a]. Therefore, disclosure of information in regard to the
functioning government must be the rule and secrecy an exception justified only where the
strictest requirement of public interest demands.[11] In historical case, Union of India v
Association of Democratic Reforms, the Supreme Court held that voter is entitled to know the
background of election candidate, therefore freedom of speech and expression includes right to
impart and receive information. Further, the court said, One-sided information, disinformation,
misinformation, and non-information all equally create an uniformed citizenry which makes the
democracy a farce.[12]
Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Parliament passed the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 that was weak law but RTI Act
2005, which came into effect on 12th Oct 2005, replaced it. Indian democracy has witnessed
crises of governance at all levels of decision making as some key components of democracy viz
accountability and transparency in governance have not been given adequate attention. Internal
accountability mechanisms like CBI & CVC have failed to function effectively because they lack
the basic power and autonomous, while the external accountability to the people rarely blossoms.
The Right to Information Act has provided an instrument in the hands of the citizens with which
it can fill the vacuum of accountability by utilization of the Act in large scale.
Prime Minister Dr Man Mohan during the National Convention on Right to Information of 2006
in New Delhi said, RTI is an important milestone in our quest for building an enlightened and at
the same time prosperous society.[13] Jeremy Bentham said, Secrecy being an instrument of
conspiracy ought never to be the system of regular government.[14] RTI in last six years has
established transparency discourse irrevocably placing transparency in the middle of the debate
on good governance. RTI Activist Arun Roy said idea of RTI was not merely fighting corruption
but arbitrary use of power, mis- use of power and seeking justice.[15] Justice Ravindran and
Patnik while allowing disclosure of answer sheets of student in public examination held that
The right to information is cherished right, information and the right to information is intended
to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring about
transparency and accountability.[16]
Popularity of the RTI Act can be measured by the mere fact that only 249 appeals and complaints
pending before the CIC in the month of April 2006, now the number has gone up to 2700 in the
month of August 2010.[17] Ex Minster of Central Government Subramanya Swami who
acquired some documents under RTI and filed PIL in SC on 2G scandal which led to arrest of
former telecommunication Minster Raja who is now in jail.[18] Ex Chief Minister of
Maharashtra Ashok Chavan lost his Chief Minster ship and named as accused in the Adrasha
Building Scandal in Mumbai that was exposed by RTI activist Santosh Dundikar.[19] Ten RTI
activists were killed in the last one-year itself indicates its sheer impact on the Indian political
spectrum.[20]

Provisions of RIA 2005.

The section 2[f] of Act has defined information in wider sense which means, any materials in any
form including records documents memos, emails, opinions, advices, press realizes, circular,
orders, logbook, contracts, reports, samples, models, data material held in any electronic from
and information related to private body which held by public authority under any law time being
in force. Only public authority has the statutory duty to dissemate Information. Section 2[h]
defines Public Authority means any authority constituted under Constitution, by Central or State
government through the legislation or notification. Any other authority owned, controlled and
substantially financed by government including NGO. Right to Information means, inspection of
works, documents, results, taking notes extracts or certified copies of documents, taking certified
sample of material and obtaining the information in the form of CD. Section 3 authorizes the
citizen of India to seek the information.
The process of providing information under RTI Act is simple, easy, time bound and cheap
which makes the legislation successful, powerful and effective. Section 6 empowers the person
to make simple application for information or through electronic means without disclosing the
reason for obtaining such information.[21] Where the application of information is submitted by
mistake to the authority that does not have the necessary information, under such circumstances,
the person need not submit fresh application, the same application will be forwarded to the
authority which is having information and the same is intimated to the applicant. Thus, the task
of applicant is made very easy.[22] Section 5 obligates the authority to appoint Public
Information Officer [PIO] to whom the application can be submitted. PIO who seeks the
assistance of other officer for getting information is also called as PIO. The information has to be
provided to the applicant as expeditiously as possible but not latter than 30 days from the date of
receipt of application. The information related to the third party shall be reveled within 40 days
and related to life, and liberty of person shall be disclosed within 48 hours.[23] On the other
hand, the authority forms opinion that sought information cannot be reveled; they may reject the
application with reasons. The PIO who neither provides information nor reject the application
within 30 days is deemed to be refused to furnish information.[24] The person whose application
is rejected or information refused by the PIO may appeal to the appellate authority, which is
constituted under the Act to hear the appeal. The person even aggrieved by the decision of
appellate authority can make second appeal to the Central or State Commission as the case may
be.[25]The information would be provided on payment of prescribed fees that is not substantial.
However, the cost of providing information becomes expensive than prescribed amount, the
same would be intimated to applicant and information will be provided on payment of such fees.
Nevertheless, the cost should not be unreasonable. Section 4 of the Act is worthy to be lauded
because it obligates the Public Authority on suo motto bases to furnish certain vital information
about the organization to the people in local language at regular intervals with update.
Voluntarily disclosure of information makes the authority transparent and accessibility of
information becomes easy, which in turn produces good rapport between authority and people.
Further, that would reduce the burden of authority because people would not file application for
such information. Section 8 is most important provision of the RTI Act that exempt certain
information from the disclosure, which are about 10 matters. Nevertheless, the exemption clause
is not absolute; the authority has discretionary power to disclose the exempted information when

public interest outweighs the harm to individual protected interest. Further, Sub section 3 of 8
says that exempted matter related to first categories shall be revealed after 20 years from the
occurrence of events. Most laudable section of RTI Act is 8 [1] which says that Provided that
the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be
denied to any person. This section provides the privileges of Parliamentarian to the commoners
that mean whatever information cannot be denied to the Member of the Parliament same
information cannot be denied to the applicant. All the protective norms against the exemption
clause make inferences that section 8 should lead for doctrine of maximum disclosure and least
secrecy of information. Section 9 of the Act prohibits disclosure of information which violates
copy right of other person. The RTI Act has provided sufficient protection to those persons who
provide vital information to the enforcing agencies. Any information related such person, which
is classified as confidential, would not be reveled unless that party consented for such
disclosure. The RTI Act has kept political interference at bay by making the transparent process
of appointment of Commissioner to the Central Information Commission [CIC] and State
Information Commission [SIC]. Central Government would constitute Central Information
Commission consisting Chief Information Commissioner [CIC] and other Central Information
Commissioner not exceeding ten.[26] The Chief Information Commissioner and ten other
Information Commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the
selection of committee consisting of Prime Minster, Leader of the Opposition Party in the
Lokshaba and Cabinet Minster nominated by the Prime Minster. The Act has provided sufficient
protection to the members from the interference from the executive. They hold the office for 5
years and will be removed from the office by the President only on the ground of misbehavior or
incapacity after the due enquiry made by the Supreme Court.[27]Section 15 empowers the State
government to constitute the State Information Commission. Its structure, procedure of
appointment and removal of members provisions are similar to the provisions of Central
Information Commission.[28]
Where the person is aggrieved by the refusal of information, incomplete, and wrongful
information by the PIO and appellate authority, can make complaint or appeal to the Central or
State Information Commission as the case may be. The Commission may provide the following
reliefs.[29]
i.
Providing access to information.
ii.
Ordering the appointment of PIO.
iii.
Publishing the information.
iv.
Awarding compensation to party.
v.
Imposing the penalty on the PIO.
During the investigation, where Commission finds that PIO has refused information without
cause, not furnished within time specified or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information. Such PIO shall be fined Rs 250 per day until the information is
furnished but overall the fine shall not exceed Rs 25000.[30]
Further, the Commission may recommend for disciplinary action against the erring PIO in
accordance with service rules.[31] Section 22 authorizes the PIO to furnish information
notwithstanding any prohibition in the Official Secret Act 1923 or any other law for the time
being in force. Repercussion of this section would be severe on the functioning of government
because RTI Act has overriding effect over other legislation that makes the Act laudable.
Whatever other legislation prohibits or restricts the disclosure of information yet the information
would be diseemation under RTI. Thats why the RTI Act has held in high esteem and Globally

appreciated. The Section 24 exempts organizations related to security and intelligence that are
listed in the second schedule from the coverage of the Act. There are 22 organizations in the
schedule including the recent controversial inclusion of CBI. Nevertheless, the exemption clause
is not absolute because they have to disclose the information related to the corruption and abuse
of human rights.[32]
RTI Act has expected to bring revolutionary changes in the working culture of government from
secrecy to transparency course but Act has neither totally succeeded nor miserably failed.
Producing high reaps from the seeds of RTI Act in short duration of six years would be expecting
too much, it has to cover long distance to achieve its desired result. In the last six years of its
implementation, certain deficiencies are noticed in the provisions of law and some practical
hurdles are cropped up.
Section 3 of the RTI Act empowers only citizens to seek information and non-citizens are denied
the same privilege such discrimination is untenable. In US, even the non-citizens are allowed to
acquire the information. No doubt, Right to Information is enumerated from the fundamental
right of freedom of speech and expression that is guaranteed to citizens of India. The
classification between citizen and non-citizen in respect of freedom of speech and expression is
based on intangible difference and having nexus with object of freedom of speech and
expression. Citizens of India are entitled to exercise the freedom of speech and expression
against their government because the government is, of the people by the people and for the
people of India. We cannot say same thing in respect of non-citizen. Obliviously, the framers of
the Constitution have expressly denied the freedom of speech and expression to non-citizen.
However, Right to Information is means to end but not an end itself. Non-citizens of India are
also entitled to have the protection of certain fundament rights under the Constitution. Those are
rights of accused under Article 20, life and liberty under 21, preventive detention laws of 22,
rights of religion under 25 and right to seek justice from SC under Article 32. Naturally, noncitizens also require sum information from the government to have the meaningful protection of
these rights. Therefore, denying the same right to non-citizen amounts to arbitrary. Moreover,
non-citizens are not be prevented from getting the information under the Act. Section 6[2] of the
RTI Act says citizen need not furnish motive or reason for seeking the information and such
information may be passed to non-citizen which is not offence under the Act. Where the RTI Act
has allowed the non-citizen to acquire information indirectly, then there is no justification of
such direct prohibition apparently, which amounts contradictory.
Transparency in the appointment of members of the Central Information Commission by the
selection committee consisting Prime Minster, nominated Cabinet Minster and Opposition Party
Leader in the Lokshabha is the hallmark of the legislation. The crucial question is whether the
selection of member should be the norm of majority or unanimous. If the decision has to be taken
by the majority then participation and consultation of the Opposition Party Leader is mere
formality because the Prime Minster and his nominated Cabinet Minster are always on one side
and Opposition Party Leader voice would be never heard. This is what had happened in the case
of P.J. Thomas appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner, which was struck down by the
Supreme Court as ultra virus.[33] In that appointment, Prime Minster Man Mohan Sing and
Home Minster Chidanmbram had over ruled what in final analysis turned out to be valid object
by the third party member Susma Swaraj, the Leader of the Opposition.[34] If at all due
weightage is to be given to the Leader of the Opposition Leader in the appointment of members
then obviously decision should be on unanimous rather than majority otherwise government has

2-1majority in the selection committee of its choice.[35] The Act should be amended to add the
specific provision for the unanimous decision for the appointment of members or selection
committee should consist Prime Minster, Opposition Party leader and Nominee of Chief Justice
instead of Cabinet Minster appointed by PM that would bring fairness in the process of
appointment of Commissioners.[36]
The people whole-heartedly appreciated the RTA Act because it provides information within the
specified period but the same notion is not sustained at the stage of complaint and appeal under
section 18 and 19 of the Act respectively. It is mandatory for authority to constitute the appellate
authority to which the first appeal against the decision of PIO lies that has no obligation to
dispose of the appeal within stipulated period that would the defeat the very purpose of law. The
second appeal may be filed before the CIC or SIC as the case may be but here also the same
lacuna is existed. Time- being, there may be crunch of financial resources to establish more
numbers of CIC and SIC at different places. Nevertheless, in respect of first appeal, it is
mandatory to appoint the appellate authority in every public authority; moreover, appeals would
not be in huge numbers. Therefore, not sticking to the time schedule for the deposal of first
appeal is untenable. Ten members body of CIC would be certainly disproportionate to the 1.2
billion population of India. Following table of appeals and complaints pending before CIC
suggest there is no rosy future for CIC unless numbers are hiked.[37]
year month
2006 April
2006 May
2011 June
2011
July
2011 August

Opening Balance
486
638
18854
19276
19571

Receipt
249
413
2665
2249
2700

Disposal
97
205
2243
1954
2039

Closing Balance
638
846
19276
19571
20232.

In Karnataka, Commissioner of Information Dr Sajjan Rao said we have 30000 pending cases
of RTI; it would take few months to dispose of. [38] The time has come to scale up the number
of Commissioner and establishment of more number of benches of Commission at different parts
of the country.
RTI Act has constituted two parallel independent authorities that which weakened than
strengthens the Act. Central and State government public authorities comes under the jurisdiction
of CIC and SIC respectively. Section 15 of RTI Act says that SIC is autonomous body, which is
not subjected to the any other authority under the Act. It means that doctrine of stare decisis is
not applicable because SIC is not subordinate to the CIC which is not healthy sign of law. SIC
may interpret the provisions of RTI Act independently without taking into consideration of CICs
interpretations and even it may give contrary decisions to the decisions of CIC. Under such
circumstances, either High Court under Article 226 or Supreme Court under Article 32 or 136
has to resolve the confusion and controversy. All these problems would have been sorted out by
simple norm of making SIC subordinate to the CIC. SIC decision is final and not subjected to the
appeal to the CIC is rational otherwise it would have amounted too many appeals but not making
it subordinate to the CIC is not viable in the interest of RTI Act itself. Establishment of single
hierarchy of quasi-judicial body under any law is always preferable for overall coherence
existence of authorities and the efficient function of law.
The RTI Act has had, and continues to have a significant positive impact on democratic
governance in India. This is because the common people have owned the Act. The prime mover

of the Act is the ordinary person. Therefore citizens are not hesitating to exercise the powerful
right of seeking information. It provides vital information or means to fight against mafia or
corruption in any spectrum of the society. The persons who exposes mafia or scandals to society
would always face endanger to his life. RTI Activist Shehla Massod was shot down in her car in
front of her residence in broad day in Bhopal on 16 August 2011 because she was instrumental in
exposing Forest Mafia and High Corruption cases.[39] Satish Shetty RTI activist who revealed
the Mumbai-Poona Express highway land swindle was assassinated in Poona on Jan 13 2010.
Another RTI activist Amit Jethwa who brought to the notice of public regarding illegal mining in
Gir reserve was killed in Gujarat on July 20 2010.[40] In last one-year, ten RTI activists were
killed in various part of India.[41]
It is mandatory for every applicant to reveal his identity and address in his application for
information otherwise application would be rejected. Naturally, the mafia or corrupt elements
would come to know easily who has exposed them to the society. Whistle blower means the
person who discloses the adverse conduct of the person to the public interest.[42] The Law
Commission of India observed, The evil of corruption among public servants and
maladministration and the adverse effect on country would be eradicated by means of right to
information, then the protection of whistle blowers must.[43] U.S has enacted the Whistle
Blowers Protection Act, 1989 and UK Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998 that keeps the name
of the whistle blowers in confidential. They may seek information and make complaint under
secrecy that would encourage eradication of corruption. There is no such protection to the
whistle blowers under the RTI Act or general law, which is a serious deficiency in the promotion
of justice in the Indian legal system. National Advisory Council member and RTI activist Arun
Roy has strongly stressed that comprehensive whistle blowers protection law is needed. [44]
Such kind of Act would help in continuing the good result produced by RTI Act in effective
manner in the long run. The CIC is under pressure to do something to curb the casualties of the
RTI activist. The Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said CIC has decided to
disclose the nature of information sought by the RTI activist in case RTI activist is fatally
assaulted that would reveal the motive for murder which gives clues to the identifies of the
assailants which in turn would act in deterrent against attackers.[45] The Cabinet of Ministers of
India has cleared the protection of whistle-blowers bill on 13 December 2011, which is likely to
be introduced any time in the Parliament.
The CIC and SIC have power to receive the complaint and appeal from the aggrieved persons
against the decisions of the PIO under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. The both CIC and SIC
are empowered to give divergent relief under section 19[8] of the Act including penalty
according to section 20. The authorities have the power to give relief and impose the penalty but
do not have the power execute its own decision. Goa and Kerala SIC have pointed out that there
is no provision for contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the directions of SIC. If the fine
is defaulted, there is no provision to realize the penalty, and no provision to enforce
recommendation for disciplinary action under section 20[2] of the Act.[46] Further, actions for
the recover of fine or enforcement of decisions of the CIC and SIC has to be initiated under other
laws makes the RTI Act toothless and non-deterrent. It is shocking that just about 20 percent of
total penalties imposed by the Commission are recovered.[47] Public Authorities should not be
allowed to take CIC and SIC as paper-tiger. The same defect, Consumer Protection Act 1986
was faced initially and consumer who has decree in his favour is forced to file execution suit in
civil court for the enforcement of forums decisions. The proceedings of civil suit are
cumbersome that discouraged the consumer to make application under the Consumer Protection

Act. The fatal defect of CPA not having power to enforce its own decision was cured by
empowering the authorities under the section 27 of CPA to impose the punishment for the
contempt of its decisions.[48] Without the sanction of criminal putative for its contempt of order,
the RTI Act would only be a paper tiger lacking teeth altogether. Therefore, the RTI Act needs to
be amended and power should be given to the authorities to punish the persons for contempt of
its own decisions.
Section 4[1] [b] of the RTI Act says that public authority shall publish matter on suo motu bases
at regular intervals with update about information regarding 16 matters stated in the provision by
various means including internet, pamphlets, news in local papers and notice display in the office
to the people in their local language. Most of the public authorities have never cared to publish
these matters and even if published they are not updated at regular intervals. This section is
honored more in breaches than compliance. PRIA is an international centre for learning and
promotion of participation and democratic government has conducted empirical research on
Right to Information in Eight States has reported that the status of self-disclosures in various
public authorities at district level is in very poor shape, which results in pilling up application in
the PIO offices.[49] Section 4[1] [b] is the most important provision of RTI Act is grossly
disrespected by the authorities because of the simple fact that it is non-penal which should have
been deterrent. Experience and rationally suggests that non-compliance of this rule should make
the head of the organization liable to fine every day until he publishes the matter.
Apart from these deficiencies in the provisions of RTI Act, there are certain the practical
problems have surfaced during the last six years of its enforcement. Implementation of RTI Act
is very costly affair because it needs huge infrastructures. The datas and documents have to be
properly maintained, mean that is more appropriate would be computerizations, which requires
abundant of trained work force. The ground reality of storing documents and information in
government department is well below than the satisfactory level because documents are
damaged, destroyed, misplaced or sum time not available. The persons who stores the documents
and datas are neither skilled nor having the knowledge of computer technology. Successful
implementation of RTI Act much depends upon availability of the infrastructure of computer
network and trained skill workers, which requires huge budgetary support by the governments.
The following datas of budgetary support by the various governments during the year 2006-07
makes inferences that how much government is interested in implementing the RTI in effective
manner.[50]
States
Goa. M.P.
Kerala H.P. A.P. Rajasthan. Bihar. Gujarat.
Rs in laks 8.
97.
285.
59.
235. 25
75.
42.
The Indian legislators take more keen interest in enacting legislation rather than implementation
of law. Implementation of law is more important than the enactment of law otherwise the law
would loses its sanctity and integrity and that is worst than not having law. The financial support
by the State governments is disheartening unless the State governments substantially hike the
budgetary support, the RTI Act would not make much headway.
Another major problem the person who wants to file application for information faces the
hilarious task of tracing and identifying the PIO. He wastes so much of times by running form
one pillar to another to trace who is PIO and where his table and chair. The public authority
should have taken adequate measures in notifying and publishing the name of PIO but in fact,
they do not do it. Next hurdle for applicant is in whose name the fee of information has to be
made. Different authorities have named different dignitaries to whom the payment is to be made.
It would be better if State and Central government prescribes the common name for the payment

of fees. Unless these two practical problems are sorted out effectively, it would be impossible
for illiterate person to seek information. There is equal responsibility on the shoulder of citizens
to co-operate for smooth functioning of RTI Act by asking specific and precise information.
Most of the time applicant seeks general information that creates lot of confusion for the
authority to determine the nature of information to be supplied. On the other hand, the authority
should also act judicasiously by applying their mind to provide precise information instead of
supplying the bulk of documents mechanically.
Our Bureaucracy still living in the era of secrecy and disclosure is exception that they have
inherited form the legacy of Colonial rule. Even the top bureaucracies are not free form this
axiomatic. The executive must change their mindset and give up the resistant attitude in
disclosing the information. Goa SIC held that Governor Office is covered under the RTI Act but
the Governor instead of furnishing the information challenged unsuccessfully before the Bombay
High Court bench at Goa. Further, they preferred the appeal before the Bombay High Court,
which is pending.[51] Same thing happened in case of Chief Justice of India when the Justice
Balkrishan was at the helm of affairs of the Supreme Court of India. Central Information
Commission, Single and division bench of Delhi High Court have held that CJI office comes
under the preview of RTI Act but Supreme Court challenged the decision of High Court in its
own court to keep the SC out of RTI Act coverage. What ironic that SC could sue others in his
own court that too protect secrecy which it teaches others to follow the doctrine of openness and
transparency. When the CBI flooded with application for information in sensitive cases the
Home Minster excluded the CBI organization form the converge of RTI by including it under
section 24 of the RTI Act that exempt certain organizations the coverage of Act. The CIC
severely criticized the move of Home Minster and said that government appeared to be claiming
absolute secrecy for the CBI without the sanction of the law[52] Section 24 of RTI Act exempt
only organizations which are related to the intelligence and security agencies from the coverage
of Act. Central Information Commissioner shri Shailesh Gandhi rightly said unlike Army, BSF,
IB, RAW, the CBIs function are nature of investigation which are akin to the police not related
to gathering of intelligence or security.[53] Therefore, its inclusion in section 24 is ultra virus.
All these events unfolds that Executives are not yet ready to accept the change that disclosure is
rule not secrecy. The Karnataka Right to Information Federation has said RTI Act was enacted,
however due to lack of initiative and inadequate support from the administration, the full
potential of the Act was still to be realized.[54] Still the RTI Act has to cover long distance to
make the right to information is real and meaningful empowerment of citizen.
RTI Act has hardly six years child. Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh while addressing 6 th
Convention of information in New Delhi has called critical look at the RTI Act to ensure that it
does not adversely affect the deliberative process of the governmental and discourage honest
officials from articulating their views.[55] There is criticism that executives are under the
apprehension that their note which they usually express on document has rapidly becoming bone
of contention in major cases has affected the functions of government and honest officers. There
was attempt to amend the RTI Act to exclude note form the definition of information but that
move was severely criticized across the Nation, wisdom prevailed over the Prime Minster, and
his Cabinet Ministers who decided not to amend the RTI Act.[56] Honest and upright officers
need not worry about the RTI Act because there is nothing to hide, those officers who give illegal
or malfide note would worry because there is something to hide. RTI Act has affected the
efficient function of government and honest officers are harassed is unfound and false
propaganda made by the vested stakeholders who are more interested to hide the information.

Most of the time the Central and State government used appoint the retried bureaucrats as the
members of the information commissions which is not good practice, they are unlikely to
maintain neutrality because they were part and parcel of government. In 20 State Information
Commission, 27 commissioners out of 52 are from the bureaucrats, who are overrepresented
even though there is ample, scope for the appointment form, other discipline.
The RTI activist and NGO have never seriously thought of utilizing the potentiality of Consumer
Protection Act 1986 in large scale to get information from the public authorities which is more
speedier, cheaper and effective than the RTI Act. The person who makes the application for
information under RTI Act is certainly consumer because he pays the consideration in the form
of fees. The authorities, who have failed or refused to furnish the information within the
stipulated time amounts the deficiency of service, therefore, the aggrieved person can make
complaint or appeal under the RTI Act or file application before District Consumer forum under
CPA. Even he can utilize both remedies simultaneously because the CPA is derogative law not
destructive. Unlike SIC, District Consumer forum is constituted at every District so it is easily
accessible and it can order for disclosure of information in specified time. Other added
advantages are, the forum may award the compensation to the applicant, and it has power of
contempt to imprison or fine any person who disrespects its order makes most effective. The
relief by CIC or SIC may take months or years together, it is costly because it is far away form
the applicant, it has no power to award compensation, and it has no power of contempt to enforce
its own order. These entire factors emphatically crystal clearly makes that the remedies under
CPA are far better and effective than the RTI Act but peoples have not accustomed to utilize it.
Conculsion.
The Right to Information is right linked with inherent dignity of all human beings. The Right to
Information is the oxygen of democracy. Richard Nixon former President of USA said When
information popularly belongs to public systematic withhold by those in power, the people soon
become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and eventuallyincapable of determining their own destinies.[57] Harsh Mandrs, an RTI activist described the
nature and value of information as follows,
Government information is national resources, neither the particular government of the day
nor public officials create information for their own benefit. This information is generated for the
purpose related to the legitimate discharge of their duties of office and for the service of the
public for whose benefit the institutions of government exist, and who ultimately fund the
institutions of government and the salaries of officials. It follows government and officials are
trustee of the information for the people.[58]
Right to Information should be considered as right to survival: Food security, Shelter,
Environmental matters, Employment, Land acquisitions, Establishments of SEZ and Poverty are
all bound up with the right to information. In the light of decentralized power and democracy in
the form of Gram Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat, right to information has
significantly changed the attitude and behavior of the officials and become more responsive
towards mass and uneducated people that could not have done by our legal system in the last 50
years. Media and Press acts as watchdog of democracy. Media could discharge its responsibility
at optimum level, if they are assured free access to information for which in the past they used to
run from pillar to another and used unethical means to get it. Right-To-Information Act 2005 has
been successful in much more ways than was aimed to achieve. RTI Act is a milestone in the
democracy of India as it has tried to build a new institutional mechanism for ensuring

transparency and accountability in the functioning of public institutions. RTI Act has set in
motion a paradigm shift from the yesteryear governance which was under the veil of the Official
Secret Act 1923 to open and transparent governance. Right to Information is means to an end but
not an end in itself.

S.G.Goudappanavar, LL.M. Associate Professor, S.C.Nandimath Law College, BAGALKOT.587101. KARNATAK. gouri1000@gmail.com.
[1] Assange, WikiLeaks is the method we use towards our goals of a more just society, The
Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], April 13 2011. p.11.
[2] www.en.wikipedia.org./wili/Gettsburg.Adress. Accessed on 21 October 2011.
[3] www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/James_Madison.html. Accessed on 21 October 2011.
[4] Justice Salkia, A.H. Gauhati High Court, The Right to Information Act, 2005An
Instrument to Strengthen Democracy., AIR Journal, [2007].p.115.
[5] www.fipa.bc.ca/libray/public_Education/quotes,htm. Accessed on 5 September 2011.
[6] [1973] 4 SCC
223.
[7] See, General Assembly Resloution 217 [iii] of Dec 10, 1948.
[8] See, General Assembly Resloution 2200 [XXI] of Dec 16, 1966.
[9] Indian Express Newspaper[Bombay]private Ltd v. Union of India, [1985] 1 SCC 641.
[10] AIR 1982 SC 149.
[11] AIR 1982 SC 149 at 158.
[12] AIR 2002 SC 2114.
[13] Dr, Browalia,J.N. The Right to information Act. [2nd Ed.], New Dehli: Universal law
publishing Co.Pvt.Ltd.[2010].p.25
[14] www.fiba.bc.ca/library/public_Education/quotes.htm. Accessed on 5 Septmber 2011.
[15] Comperhensive Whistle blowers protection law needed:Roy The Hindu, Hubli[Ed.], 16
Oct 2011.p.3.
[16] RTI a formidable tool to fight Corruption: Suprme Court, The Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], 14
Agust 2011.p.6.
[17] www.cic.gov.in.com. Accessed on 10 December 2011.
[18] www.janataparty.org. Accessed on 2 Dec 2011.
[19] www.ritinda.org. Accessed on 4 Sep 2011.
[20] www.hindustantimes.com/strorypage. Accessed on 4 Sep 2011.
[21] Sec,6[2] of RTI.
[22] See,6[3] The Right to Information Act, 2005.
[23] Sec 7[1], Ibid.
[24] Section 7[2], Ibid.
[25] Sec 19, Ibid.
[26]
[27]
[28]

Sec 12, Ibid.

Sec 13&14, Ibid.
Sec 16&17, Ibid.

[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]

Sec18, Ibid.
Sec 20, Ibid.
Ibid.
Sec 24[1], Ibid.

Supreme Court strikes down Thomas appointment as CVC, The Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], 4
March 2011.p.1.
[34] A serve indictment Editorial, The Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], 4 March 2011.p.10.
[35] Alram bells rings for RTI, The Hindu, Hubli [ED.], 18 Oct 2012.p.9.
[36] Alram bells rings for RTI, The Hindu, Hubli [ED.], 18 Oct 2012.p.9.
[37] www.cic.gov.in.com. Accessed on 10 December 2011
[38] RTI:Division Benches Proposed, The Hindu, Hubli[Ed.], 20 July 2011.p.3.
[39] www.ibnlive.in.com/news/who-killed-rti-activist...masood/176421-3html. Accessed on 1
Dec 2011.
[40] www.hindustantimes,com/storypage. Accessed on 4 September 2011.
[41] Vidya Subrahmaniam, RTI information sought by whistle-blowers, since killed, to be made
Public, The Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], 5 October 2011.p.14.
[42] The Law Commission of Indias 179th Report on The Public interest disclosure and
protection of informers.p.5.
[43] The Law Commission of Indias 179th Report on The Public interest disclosure and
protection of informers.p.5.
[44] Comperhensive Whistle blowers protection law needed:Roy The Hindu, Hubli[Ed.], 16
Oct 2011.p.3.
[45] Vidya Subrahmaniam, RTI information sought by whistle-blowers, since killed, to be made
Public, The Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], 5 October 2011.p.14.
[46] Tracking Rights to information in Eight States, www. pria.org/project/governance.projects.
Accessed on 14 December 2011.
[47] Subhash Agarawal, Achivements of RTI Act, www.cic.gov,in. Accessed on 1 Dec 2011.
[48] The word complaint is added to section 27 by 1993 amendment. Further, it was made more
stringent in 2002 amendment of CPA.
[49] Tracking Rights to information in Eight States, www. pria.org/project/governance.projects.
Accessed on 14 December 2011.
[50] Tracking Rights to information in Eight States, www. pria.org/project/governance.projects.
Accessed on 14 December 2011.
[51] Goa Governor files appeal against RTI judgment, The Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], 26 November
2011.p.3.
[52] CIC slams government for excluding CBI form RTI Act, The Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], 3 July
2011.p.8.
[53] CIC slams government for excluding CBI form RTI Act, The Hindu, Hubli[Ed.], 3 July
2011.p.8.
[54] Take sutiable action to implement RTI Act in letter and spirit:Federation The Hindu, Hubli
[Ed.], 14 October 2011.p.11.
[55] Need for critical look at RTI Act, says Manmohan, The Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], 15 October
2011.p.14.
[56] Cabinet withdraws RTI amendments, The Hindu, Hubli [Ed.], 2 November 2012.p.1.
[57] www.fiba.bc.ca/library/public/_Education/quotes.htm. Accessed on 15 December 2011.
[33]

Mander and Joshi, The Right to information movements in IndiaPeoples Power for the
Controll of Corruption, CHRI, New Delhi, 1998.
[58]