The term ‘inform’ has been derived from the Latin word ‘informer, which means giving shape to something. Information adds something new to our awareness and removes the vagueness of our ideas. It equips us with necessary knowledge to help us in our pursuits. Be it material or spiritual. This can be a handy tool in bringing about transparency and accountability in public life thus serving a larger interest.
Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental rights to free speech and expression. The prerequisite for enjoying this right is knowledge and information. The absence of authentic information on matters of public interest leads to administrative corruption and decadence, which India is witnessing on a scale so large that it has become one of the most corrupt countries in the world. This is hampering development and growth of the country. The only way to tackle this problem is to equip citizens with Right to Information so that the bureaucracy, police and local government bodies become more responsive and accountable.
The Right to Information has, in fact, received judicial recognition as a part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression in a Supreme Court judgment in 1975. Again in 1982, the court declared that the concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under article 19 (1) (a). An open government is the new democratic culture of an open society towards which every liberal democracy is moving and our country should be no exception. In a country like India, right to know becomes a necessity for the poor, ignorant and illiterate masses. Information is indispensable for the functioning of a true democracy.
Despite such pronouncements, the Indian government did little to confer on its citizens this inalienable right. It is only after decades of concerted campaigning by several grass-root organizations, NGOs and noted activists like Aruna Roy, Prashant Bhushan, Bharat Dogra etc. that the government finally relented and
enacted the Right to Information Act 2005. The salient features of the law are as follows:
The Act confers a right to “information” rather than just “records” or “documents”. Information has broadly defined to permit the inspection of public works including taking samples of materials. The definition also includes “information erelong to a private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any law.’
The Act explicitly states that it “shall be a constant Endeavor to provide as much information sou moto. so that the public have minimum resort to the, Act]”.
Public Information Officers (PIOs) are required to be appointed “in all administrative units/office.. .as may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting it”. Assistant PIOs are also to be appointed at each sub-divisional or sub district level, and these Assistants are tasked with receiving applications and passing them on to the relevant PlO. These provisions combined are designed to bring access closer to the people, by ensuring that applicants can submit requests in their local area, rather than having to rely on the post or travel to the city.
A time limit of thirty days for normal applications and 40 days where a third party submissions is to be called for has been set. In a novel approach, these time limits are reduced to a mere 48 hours where the information sought “concerns the life and liberty of a person”.
All of the exemptions under the Act (except the exemption for information which is subject to copyright) are subject to a public interest override, whereby information may be disclosed “if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests”.
Every PlO can be fined Z 250 per day up to a maximum of ‘ 25,000 for not accepting application; delaying information release without reasonable cause; denying information in bad faith; knowingly giving incomplete, incorrect, misleading information; destroying information that has been requested and obstructing furnishing of information in any manner.
Despite such progressive provisions, the Act still retains a number of restrictive measures, which could be abused to deny information. A proviso is added that decisions of the Council of Ministers, their reasons and the materials on the basis of which the decisions were made will be published after a decision is taken and the matter is complete. This would only defeat the very purpose of the law, as it would never be possible to know the conduct of the ministers and the interests they may be serving. A range of Central intelligence and security agencies are specifically and entirely exempted from the Act.
Third parties are permitted to make representations where a PlO intends to disclosure information supplied by the third party and “treated as confidential by the
third party”. There is some concern that this provision could be abused in practice to improperly delay responses to requests, particularly because the Act defined third parties to include other public authorities.
The final form of the Act removed references to imprisonment for serious acts of non-compliance with the Act. It is notable in this respect that while the Act now allows for a fine for “denying information [in bad faith]; knowingly giving incomplete, incorrect, misleading information; destroying information that has been requested and obstructing furnishing of information in any manner. It is not clear how this provision will apply in practice.
The original Bill required that Information Commissioners would be selected by Committee comprising the Prime Minister, leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India. The Bill was amended, however, to replace the Chief Justice by a cabinet Minister chosen by the PM. This would render the selection process partisan.
Whatever may be the shortcomings of the law, it’s undoubtedly, a landmark legislation of modern India. Its avowed aim is to bring about transparency in administration and public life that would ultimately lead to openness, accountability and integrity. Going by the way the citizens have started using this law to expose corruption in government departments, it can be concluded that it would certainly help achieve that aim.