UNIT-2 Right to Information -

Unit-2

Question- What are the basic elements of Right to Information? Explain in brief the factors affecting free flow of information

The Right to Information (RTI) is a fundamental right in many democracies, empowering citizens to access information held by public authorities. In India, the RTI Act of 2005 formalizes this right, promoting transparency and accountability. Let’s break this down into the two parts of your query: the basic elements of RTI and the factors affecting the free flow of information, with references to relevant sections of the RTI Act.

1. Basic Elements of Right to Information

The RTI Act, 2005, outlines the framework for accessing information. Its basic elements include:

Right to Access Information: Under Section 3, all citizens have the right to request information from public authorities. This is the core of the RTI Act, ensuring that individuals can seek and receive information held by government bodies.
Public Authorities’ Obligation: Section 4 mandates public authorities to proactively disclose information, such as their functions, decisions, and policies, to reduce the need for formal requests. This includes publishing records and making them accessible to the public.
Transparency and Accountability: The RTI Act ensures that public authorities operate transparently. Section 6 allows citizens to request information by submitting a written or electronic application, promoting accountability in governance.
Defined Scope of Information: Section 2(f) defines “information” as any material in any form, including records, documents, emails, and more, held by public authorities. This broad definition ensures wide access to government-held data.
Exemptions and Limitations: Sections 8 and 9 outline exemptions where information can be withheld, such as matters affecting national security, personal privacy, or commercial confidence. However, even exempted information may be disclosed if public interest outweighs the harm (Section 8(2)).
Time-Bound Response: Section 7 requires public authorities to respond to RTI requests within 30 days (or 48 hours if the information concerns life and liberty). This ensures timely access to information.
Appeals Mechanism: Sections 19 and 20 provide for appeals if a request is denied. The First Appellate Authority within the public authority and the Central/State Information Commission act as redressal bodies, ensuring fairness.
Voluntary Disclosure: Section 4(1)(b) encourages public authorities to voluntarily disclose information, fostering a culture of openness without the need for formal requests.

These elements collectively ensure that the RTI Act empowers citizens while balancing the need for transparency with legitimate restrictions.

2. Factors Affecting Free Flow of Information (Detailed Explanation with RTI Act References)

The free flow of information is crucial for a democratic society, but several factors can impede it. Below are the key factors, explained in detail with references to the RTI Act:

a) Exemptions Under the RTI Act

Details: Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act list exemptions where information can be withheld. For example:
Section 8(1)(a) exempts information that could affect national security, sovereignty, or foreign relations.
Section 8(1)(d) protects commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property unless public interest justifies disclosure.
Section 8(1)(g) safeguards information that could endanger the life or safety of individuals, such as whistleblowers.
Section 9 allows withholding information if it infringes on copyright.
Impact: These exemptions can restrict access to critical information. For instance, if a citizen seeks details about a defense contract, Section 8(1)(a) might be invoked to deny the request, limiting transparency in public spending.

b) Misuse of Official Secrets Act

Details: The Official Secrets Act, 1923, often overlaps with the RTI Act. While the RTI Act promotes openness, the Official Secrets Act can be used to classify information as “secret,” blocking its release. Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act aligns with this by exempting information that could harm national security.
Impact: Public authorities may over-classify information as “secret” to avoid disclosure, even when it doesn’t genuinely threaten security. This creates a culture of secrecy, stifling the free flow of information.

c) Lack of Awareness and Accessibility

Details: Many citizens, especially in rural areas, are unaware of their rights under the RTI Act. Additionally, Section 6 requires requests to be submitted in writing or electronically, which can be a barrier for those with limited literacy or internet access.
Impact: Without awareness or accessible mechanisms, people may not exercise their RTI rights, reducing the overall flow of information. Public authorities may also fail to comply with Section 4’s mandate for proactive disclosure, further limiting access.

d) Bureaucratic Resistance and Delays

Details: Public Information Officers (PIOs) may delay responses beyond the 30-day limit stipulated in Section 7 or provide incomplete information. Section 20 allows for penalties (up to ₹25,000) for such delays, but enforcement is often weak.
Impact: Delays and non-compliance frustrate applicants, discouraging them from seeking information. For example, if a citizen requests details about a local infrastructure project and the PIO delays the response, transparency in public spending is compromised.

e) Privacy Concerns

Details: Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information that could invade privacy unless public interest outweighs the harm. For instance, disclosing a public official’s medical records might be denied under this section.
Impact: While this protects individual rights, it can be misused to withhold information that should be public. For example, details about a public servant’s misconduct might be hidden under the guise of privacy, hindering accountability.

f) Corruption and Fear of Retribution

Details: Corruption within public authorities can lead to suppression of information. Section 8(1)(g) aims to protect informants, but fear of retaliation often deters citizens from filing RTI requests, especially in cases involving powerful entities.
Impact: In high-corruption environments, the free flow of information is stifled as citizens avoid seeking information that might expose wrongdoing. For instance, RTI activists in India have faced violence when investigating land scams, deterring others from using the Act.

g) Infrastructure and Record-Keeping Issues

Details: Section 4(1)(a) requires public authorities to maintain records in an indexed and accessible manner. However, poor record-keeping practices, especially in smaller offices, often make it difficult to retrieve information.
Impact: If records are not digitized or properly maintained, fulfilling RTI requests becomes challenging, delaying or preventing the flow of information. For example, a citizen seeking historical data on a public project might be denied due to missing records.

h) Third-Party Information

Details: Section 11 deals with third-party information, requiring the third party to be consulted before disclosure. If the third party objects, the information may not be released.
Impact: This can block access to information involving private entities working with the government, such as public-private partnership contracts, limiting transparency in such dealings.

i) Overburdened Information Commissions

Details: The Central and State Information Commissions, established under Sections 12 and 15, handle appeals under Section 19. However, they often face backlogs due to high volumes of appeals and limited resources.
Impact: Delays in the appeals process can discourage citizens from pursuing their RTI requests, reducing the overall effectiveness of the Act in ensuring information flow.

j) Misinterpretation of Public Interest

Details: Section 8(2) allows disclosure of exempted information if public interest outweighs the harm. However, the term “public interest” is subjective and often misinterpreted by PIOs to deny requests.
Impact: Arbitrary denials under the pretext of lacking public interest can hinder access to information. For example, details about environmental violations by a company might be withheld, despite clear public interest in the matter.

Conclusion

The RTI Act, 2005, establishes a robust framework for the Right to Information through its core elements like access, transparency, and accountability. However, factors such as exemptions (Sections 8 and 9), bureaucratic resistance, privacy concerns, and poor infrastructure significantly affect the free flow of information. Addressing these challenges requires stricter enforcement of penalties (Section 20), better record-keeping (Section 4), and increased awareness to ensure the RTI Act achieves its goal of empowering citizens and fostering an open democracy.

Question- What do you understand by RTI? How Right to Information is helpful in protection of Human Rights. Explain in detail with case laws

The Right to Information (RTI) is a legal mechanism that empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities, promoting transparency, accountability, and participatory governance. In India, the RTI Act of 2005 codifies this right, enabling individuals to request information from government bodies to ensure openness in administration. Below, I’ll explain the concept of RTI, its role in protecting human rights, and illustrate its impact with relevant case laws.

1. Understanding the Right to Information (RTI)

The RTI refers to the right of citizens to access information held by public authorities, ensuring that governance is transparent and accountable. In India, the RTI Act, 2005, is the primary legislation governing this right. Key aspects of RTI include:

Legal Framework: The RTI Act, 2005, applies to all public authorities at the central, state, and local levels. Under Section 3, every citizen has the right to request information, and Section 6 outlines the process for filing an RTI application.
Scope of Information: Section 2(f) defines “information” broadly, including records, documents, emails, and other materials held by public authorities. This ensures that citizens can access a wide range of data, from government policies to expenditure details.
Transparency and Accountability: The RTI Act mandates proactive disclosure under Section 4, requiring public authorities to publish information about their functions, decisions, and policies. It also sets a 30-day response time for requests under Section 7, ensuring timely access.
Exemptions and Appeals: Sections 8 and 9 list exemptions, such as information affecting national security or personal privacy. However, Section 19 provides for appeals through Information Commissions if requests are denied, ensuring a mechanism for redressal.
Purpose: RTI aims to empower citizens by making governance transparent, reducing corruption, and enabling informed participation in democracy. It shifts the power dynamic, allowing ordinary citizens to question and scrutinize public authorities.

In essence, RTI is a tool for democratic empowerment, ensuring that the government operates in the public interest and remains accountable to its citizens.

2. How RTI Helps in the Protection of Human Rights

Human rights encompass civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to life, liberty, education, health, and a clean environment. RTI plays a crucial role in protecting these rights by enabling citizens to access information that can expose violations, ensure accountability, and facilitate corrective action. Here’s a detailed explanation of how RTI contributes to human rights protection:

a) Promotes Transparency in Governance

Mechanism: RTI ensures that government actions are open to scrutiny. By accessing information on policies, budgets, and decisions, citizens can monitor whether public authorities are upholding human rights.
Human Rights Impact: Transparency helps prevent abuses of power that could violate rights like the right to life (Article 21 of the Indian Constitution) or equality (Article 14). For example, RTI can reveal mismanagement in welfare schemes, ensuring that marginalized communities receive their entitlements.
Example: Information about food distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS) can expose corruption, ensuring the right to food for the underprivileged.

b) Ensures Accountability for Human Rights Violations

Mechanism: RTI allows citizens to seek information about government actions, such as police conduct, prison conditions, or environmental policies, holding authorities accountable for violations.
Human Rights Impact: This protects rights like freedom from torture (Article 21) and the right to a fair trial. Citizens can use RTI to investigate custodial deaths, illegal detentions, or failures in public health systems.
Example: RTI requests can reveal data on maternal mortality rates, prompting action to protect the right to health for women.

c) Empowers Marginalized Communities

Mechanism: RTI enables vulnerable groups—such as women, Scheduled Castes/Tribes, and the poor—to access information about their entitlements, such as welfare schemes, land records, or educational opportunities.
Human Rights Impact: This upholds economic and social rights, like the right to education (Article 21A) and the right to work (Article 41). By accessing information, marginalized groups can demand their rights and challenge discrimination.
Example: RTI has been used to expose irregularities in the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), ensuring the right to work for rural laborers.

d) Protects Environmental Rights

Mechanism: RTI allows citizens to access information about environmental clearances, pollution levels, and industrial projects, ensuring compliance with environmental laws.
Human Rights Impact: This safeguards the right to a clean and healthy environment, which is part of the right to life under Article 21. Citizens can use RTI to challenge projects that harm ecosystems or displace communities.
Example: RTI requests have been used to obtain data on deforestation, leading to interventions that protect the rights of indigenous communities to their land and livelihood.

e) Strengthens Democratic Participation

Mechanism: By providing access to information, RTI enables citizens to make informed decisions, participate in policy-making, and hold elected representatives accountable.
Human Rights Impact: This protects political rights, such as the right to free expression and participation (Article 19). Informed citizens can advocate for policies that uphold human rights, such as gender equality or minority rights.
Example: RTI has been used to access election funding details, promoting transparency in political processes and protecting democratic rights.

f) Combats Corruption and Abuse of Power

Mechanism: RTI exposes corruption by allowing citizens to scrutinize public spending, contracts, and decision-making processes.
Human Rights Impact: Corruption often leads to human rights violations, such as denial of healthcare, education, or fair trials. By curbing corruption, RTI ensures that resources meant for human rights protection are not misappropriated.
Example: RTI has uncovered scams in healthcare, ensuring that funds for public hospitals are used to protect the right to health.

3. Case Laws Illustrating RTI’s Role in Protecting Human Rights

Several landmark cases in India demonstrate how RTI has been instrumental in safeguarding human rights by enabling transparency and accountability. Below are key examples:

a) People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)

Context: This case preceded the RTI Act but laid the foundation for its enactment. PUCL filed a petition seeking transparency in food distribution under the PDS, as millions were facing starvation despite surplus food stocks.
RTI Connection: The case highlighted the need for a legal right to information to ensure the right to food, a part of the right to life under Article 21. The Supreme Court ordered the government to disclose information about food stocks and distribution, leading to reforms in the PDS.
Human Rights Impact: By ensuring transparency, the judgment protected the right to food for marginalized communities. Post-RTI Act, citizens have used Section 4 (proactive disclosure) to monitor PDS implementation, preventing starvation deaths.

b) Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2012)

Context: This case dealt with the functioning of the Central Information Commission (CIC), established under Section 12 of the RTI Act. The petitioner challenged the qualifications of Information Commissioners, arguing that their lack of expertise led to inefficiencies in handling RTI appeals.
RTI Connection: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the CIC in ensuring access to information, particularly in cases involving human rights violations. It directed that Commissioners should have legal or judicial expertise to handle appeals effectively under Section 19.
Human Rights Impact: A robust appeals mechanism ensures that citizens can challenge denials of information related to human rights, such as police brutality or denial of welfare benefits. This protects rights like the right to a fair trial and equality before the law (Articles 14 and 21).

c) Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE (2011)

Context: A student used the RTI Act to access his evaluated answer sheets from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), which initially denied the request citing Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary relationship).
RTI Connection: The Supreme Court ruled that answer sheets are not exempt under Section 8 and must be disclosed under the RTI Act. It held that transparency in education is a public interest matter.
Human Rights Impact: This judgment protected the right to education (Article 21A) by ensuring fairness in the evaluation process. Students can now use RTI to verify their results, preventing arbitrary grading that could affect their future opportunities.

d) Common Cause v. Union of India (2015)

Context: The NGO Common Cause used RTI to obtain information about the allocation of coal blocks, revealing irregularities and corruption in the process (the “Coalgate” scandal).
RTI Connection: The RTI requests exposed how public resources were misallocated, leading to the Supreme Court canceling 204 coal block allocations. The court relied on RTI data to ensure transparency in resource allocation.
Human Rights Impact: By curbing corruption, this case protected economic rights, such as the right to equitable access to resources. It also upheld the right to a clean environment (Article 21), as illegal mining often leads to environmental degradation affecting communities.

e) Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019)

Context: Activist Anjali Bhardwaj filed an RTI application seeking details of the appointment of Information Commissioners under the RTI Act, alleging delays and lack of transparency in the process.
RTI Connection: The Supreme Court directed the government to disclose the selection process and ensure timely appointments under Sections 12 and 15 (establishment of Information Commissions). It emphasized that delays in appointing Commissioners undermine the RTI Act’s effectiveness.
Human Rights Impact: A functional RTI system ensures that citizens can access information to protect their rights, such as the right to health (e.g., hospital data) or the right to a clean environment (e.g., pollution data). This case strengthened the RTI framework, indirectly safeguarding multiple human rights.

f) RTI Activism and Custodial Death Cases

Context: RTI activists have frequently used the Act to investigate custodial deaths and police brutality. For example, in 2010, activist Satish Shetty used RTI to expose a land scam in Maharashtra, which led to his murder but also prompted investigations into the scam.
RTI Connection: RTI requests under Section 6 have been used to obtain post-mortem reports, FIRs, and prison records, exposing violations like custodial torture.
Human Rights Impact: These efforts protect the right to life and liberty (Article 21) by ensuring accountability for extrajudicial killings and torture. For instance, RTI data has led to National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) interventions in custodial death cases, ensuring justice for victims’ families.

4. Conclusion

The Right to Information, as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005, is a powerful tool for ensuring transparency and accountability in governance. It plays a critical role in protecting human rights by empowering citizens to monitor government actions, expose violations, and demand corrective measures. From ensuring the right to food (PUCL case) to promoting fairness in education (Aditya Bandopadhyay case) and curbing corruption (Common Cause case), RTI has been instrumental in upholding civil, political, economic, and social rights. However, challenges like bureaucratic resistance, exemptions under Section 8, and risks to activists (e.g., Satish Shetty’s case) highlight the need for stronger enforcement and protection mechanisms to fully realize RTI’s potential in safeguarding human rights.

Question- Explain meaning, scope and historical background of Right to Information in detail

The Right to Information (RTI) is a fundamental democratic principle that empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities, fostering transparency, accountability, and participatory governance. In India, this right is codified through the RTI Act of 2005. Below, I’ll explain the meaning, scope, and historical background of RTI in detail, as requested.

1. Meaning of Right to Information

The Right to Information refers to the legal entitlement of citizens to seek and obtain information from public authorities. It is rooted in the principles of democracy, where the government is accountable to the people, and transparency is essential for informed decision-making and effective governance. RTI ensures that citizens can scrutinize government actions, participate in policy-making, and hold authorities accountable for their decisions.

Core Idea: RTI shifts the power dynamic by making government operations open to public scrutiny. It is often described as a tool to “democratize information,” ensuring that citizens have access to data that impacts their lives.
Legal Definition in India: Under the RTI Act, 2005, Section 2(f) defines “information” as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, press releases, and more, held by public authorities. Section 2(j) defines the “right to information” as the right to access such information, including the right to inspect records, take notes, or obtain certified copies.
Purpose: RTI aims to promote transparency, reduce corruption, and empower citizens to participate actively in governance. It ensures that the government operates in the public interest and that citizens can exercise their democratic rights effectively.

In essence, RTI is a mechanism to ensure that the government functions as a servant of the people, not as an opaque entity beyond scrutiny.

2. Scope of Right to Information (Under the RTI Act, 2005)

The scope of RTI in India is defined by the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, which applies to public authorities at all levels of government—central, state, and local. The Act outlines who can access information, what information can be accessed, and the limitations or exemptions to this right. Here’s a detailed breakdown of its scope:

a) Applicability

Public Authorities Covered: Section 2(h) defines “public authority” as any body established under the Constitution, by law, or by government notification, including government departments, public sector undertakings, and bodies substantially financed by the government. This includes:
Central and state government ministries and departments.
Local bodies like municipal corporations and panchayats.
Public sector organizations like banks, universities, and hospitals.
Private Bodies: Private entities are not directly covered under the RTI Act. However, information held by private bodies that can be accessed by a public authority (e.g., through regulatory oversight) can be requested indirectly under Section 2(f).
Citizens’ Rights: Section 3 states that all citizens of India have the right to access information under the Act. Notably, this right is not extended to non-citizens or foreign entities.

b) Types of Information Accessible

Broad Definition: Section 2(f) includes a wide range of information, such as records, documents, emails, contracts, reports, and even samples of materials (e.g., construction materials used in public projects).
Proactive Disclosure: Section 4 mandates public authorities to voluntarily disclose information, such as their organizational structure, functions, budgets, and decision-making processes, to reduce the need for formal RTI requests.
Access Methods: Section 2(j) allows citizens to:
Inspect documents or records.
Take notes, extracts, or certified copies.
Obtain information in electronic form (e.g., CDs, emails).
Access samples of materials (e.g., quality testing samples).

c) Process of Accessing Information

Filing Requests: Section 6 allows citizens to file RTI applications in writing or electronically, specifying the information sought. The application can be in English, Hindi, or the official language of the area.
Response Time: Section 7 requires public authorities to respond within 30 days (or 48 hours if the information concerns life and liberty). If the request is denied, reasons must be provided.
Fees: A nominal fee is required for filing RTI applications (₹10 for central government bodies, as per the RTI Rules, 2012). Additional charges may apply for copies or other formats, but exemptions exist for Below Poverty Line (BPL) applicants.

d) Exemptions and Limitations

Exempted Information: Section 8 lists categories of information that can be withheld, including:
Information affecting national security, sovereignty, or foreign relations (Section 8(1)(a)).
Information that could harm commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property (Section 8(1)(d)).
Personal information that invades privacy, unless public interest outweighs the harm (Section 8(1)(j)).
Information that could endanger the life or safety of individuals (Section 8(1)(g)).
Public Interest Override: Section 8(2) allows disclosure of exempted information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests.
Third-Party Information: Section 11 requires consultation with third parties before disclosing their information, ensuring their interests are considered.
Exempted Organizations: Section 24 exempts certain intelligence and security organizations (e.g., RAW, IB) from the Act, except in cases of corruption or human rights violations.

e) Appeals and Enforcement

Appeals Mechanism: Section 19 provides for a two-tier appeal process:
First appeal to a designated officer within the public authority (within 30 days of denial).
Second appeal to the Central or State Information Commission (within 90 days of the first appeal decision).
Penalties for Non-Compliance: Section 20 allows the Information Commission to impose penalties (up to ₹25,000) on Public Information Officers (PIOs) for denying information without reasonable cause, providing incomplete information, or causing delays.
Information Commissions: Sections 12 and 15 establish the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) to oversee implementation and handle appeals.

f) Scope of Impact

RTI extends beyond mere access to documents—it empowers citizens to monitor government actions, expose corruption, and ensure accountability. It has been used to:
Uncover scams (e.g., the 2G spectrum and coal block allocation cases).
Monitor welfare schemes like MGNREGA and PDS.
Protect environmental rights by accessing data on industrial projects.
Ensure transparency in education, healthcare, and public infrastructure.

In summary, the scope of RTI in India is vast, covering most public authorities and a wide range of information, with clear processes for access, exemptions, and enforcement. However, its effectiveness depends on implementation and addressing challenges like bureaucratic resistance and exemptions.

3. Historical Background of Right to Information

The evolution of RTI in India and globally is rooted in the broader movement for transparency and democratic governance. Its historical background can be traced through international developments, India’s constitutional framework, and grassroots activism.

a) Global Context

Origins in Sweden: The concept of RTI dates back to Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act of 1766, which was the world’s first law granting citizens access to government information. This set a precedent for transparency in governance.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Article 19 of the UDHR recognizes the right to “seek, receive, and impart information” as part of freedom of expression, laying the foundation for RTI as a human right.
Spread of RTI Laws: By the late 20th century, many democracies adopted RTI laws:
The U.S. passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966.
Canada (1983), Australia (1982), and the UK (2000) followed with their own transparency laws.
International Recognition: The 1990s saw RTI being recognized as a cornerstone of good governance by organizations like the United Nations and World Bank, which linked transparency to reduced corruption and better development outcomes.

b) Pre-Independence India

Colonial Secrecy: During British rule, the colonial government operated under a culture of secrecy. Laws like the Official Secrets Act, 1923, were enacted to restrict access to information, prioritizing control over transparency.
Early Demands for Transparency: Indian freedom fighters, including Mahatma Gandhi, emphasized the importance of openness in governance. Gandhi’s principle of “Satyagraha” (truth and non-violence) indirectly supported the idea of public access to truth and information.

c) Post-Independence Developments

Constitutional Foundation: The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, indirectly supports RTI through:
Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to access information as a prerequisite for informed expression.
Article 21: The right to life and liberty has been expanded to include the right to know, as seen in cases like State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975).
Judicial Activism:
State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court held that the right to know is implicit in Article 19(1)(a). The court ruled that citizens have a right to know about government actions, particularly in the context of election transparency.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Also known as the Judges Transfer Case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to information is part of freedom of speech and expression, emphasizing the need for transparency in judicial appointments.
Public Movements: In the 1990s, grassroots movements played a pivotal role in demanding RTI:
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS): In Rajasthan, MKSS led a movement for transparency in village-level governance, demanding access to muster rolls and expenditure records under MGNREGA. Their campaigns, including public hearings (“jan sunwais”), exposed corruption and mobilized public support for RTI.
National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI): Formed in 1996, NCPRI advocated for a national RTI law, building on the success of state-level movements.

d) State-Level RTI Laws in India

Before the national RTI Act, several states enacted their own transparency laws in response to public demand:
Tamil Nadu (1997): The first state to pass an RTI law.
Goa (1997), Rajasthan (2000), Karnataka (2000), and Maharashtra (2002) followed with their own laws.
These state laws varied in scope and effectiveness but set the stage for a national framework.

e) Enactment of the RTI Act, 2005

Freedom of Information Act, 2002: The first national law on RTI was passed in 2002 but never implemented due to procedural delays and lack of political will.
Pressure from Civil Society: Activists, including Aruna Roy and Anna Hazare, continued to push for a stronger law. The NCPRI and other groups lobbied for amendments to the 2002 Act.
UPA Government’s Commitment: The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, elected in 2004, included RTI in its National Common Minimum Programme. The National Advisory Council (NAC), chaired by Sonia Gandhi, played a key role in drafting the new law.
RTI Act, 2005: The RTI Bill was passed by Parliament in June 2005 and came into force on October 12, 2005. It repealed the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, and established a comprehensive framework for transparency.

f) Post-2005 Developments

Impact of the RTI Act: Since its enactment, the RTI Act has been widely used to expose corruption (e.g., 2G spectrum scam, coal block allocations), monitor welfare schemes, and ensure accountability in governance.
Challenges: Despite its success, the RTI Act faces challenges like bureaucratic resistance, delays in appointing Information Commissioners, and threats to activists (e.g., the murder of RTI activist Satish Shetty in 2010).
Amendments: The RTI Amendment Act, 2019, altered the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners (Sections 13 and 16), raising concerns about government control over the Commissions and potential weakening of the Act’s independence.

g) Landmark Cases Shaping RTI

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003): The Supreme Court ordered transparency in food distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS), highlighting the need for RTI to protect the right to food.
Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE (2011): The court ruled that students can access their evaluated answer sheets under RTI, reinforcing the right to transparency in education.
Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019): The Supreme Court directed the government to ensure timely appointments of Information Commissioners, strengthening the RTI framework.

4. Conclusion

The Right to Information is a cornerstone of democratic governance, empowering citizens to access information, hold authorities accountable, and participate in decision-making. In India, the RTI Act, 2005, provides a robust framework for this right, with a broad scope covering public authorities, a wide range of information, and mechanisms for enforcement. Its historical background reflects a long struggle for transparency, from global movements to India’s own constitutional and grassroots efforts. While the RTI Act has transformed governance by exposing corruption and protecting rights, challenges like exemptions, bureaucratic resistance, and threats to activists highlight the need for continued vigilance to ensure its effectiveness. The evolution of RTI underscores its importance as a tool for democracy, rooted in the principle that an informed citizenry is essential for a just and accountable society.