Introduction
The RTI Act is one of the important acts of constitution that empowers ordinary citizens to question the working of Government. RTI Act holds an eminent importance for media, social institutions and citizens to uncover the prevailing corruption, track progress in government work and keeping a check on Government duties.
What is Right to Information Act 2005?
Right to Information (RTI) is an act of Parliament of India that sets out the rules and procedures regarding right to information of citizens. Under the RTI Act 2005, any citizen of India can request ‘information’ from a ‘Public Authority’ (a body of Government) that is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days.
A ‘Public Authority’ is an authority or body or institution of self Government constituted under the constitution; or by any other law made by the Parliament or a State Government Legislature or by notification issued or order made by the State Government or Central Government.
An ‘Information’ means any material in any form including memos, documents, e-mails, opinions, records, press releases, papers, samples, logbooks, records and data material held in any electronic form to be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
A ‘Record’ includes (a) Any microfilm, microfiche (b) Any document, manuscript and file (c) Any reproduction of images embodied in such a microfilm.
Historical background
The RTI Act 2005 was passed by legislation of Parliament of India on 15th June 2005. It came into force with effect from 12th October 2005. The Act has been implemented since then to provide information to millions of Indian citizens. All the constitutional authorities come under this act making it one of the most powerful laws of the country.
Aims and Objectives of RTI Act 2005
The Right to Information Act 2005, also known as RTI Act 2005 is a revolutionary Act that was passed after sustained efforts of anti - corruption activities. The aims and objectives of RTI Act 2005 are given below:
- To reduce corruption by promoting accountability in the functioning of every public authority.
To promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government.
To open up Government records for public scrutiny.
To enhance people’s participation in democratic process.
To develop trust among masses, especially vulnerable sections.
To provide a legal framework to empower citizens with their democratic right to access information.
To harmonise and settle any kind of conflicting interest and priorities in operations of the Government.
Landmark judgments on RTI Act by Supreme Courts
The highest court of India, Supreme Court has given landmark judgments on RTI Act in the past. Let’s have a look at them one by one:
1. CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)
Conducted by CBSE, the respondent was appeared for the Secondary School Examination, 2008. When he got the marksheet, he was disappointed with his marks. He thought that when he had done well in the examination, but his answer - books are not properly valued which resulted in low marks. Hence, he made an application for inspection and re-evaluation of the answer books. But, CBSE had rejected his request claiming that the information sought is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act as it shares the fiduciary relationship with the evaluators and it has to maintain confidentiality in method of evaluation. But, the student wanted CBSE to
allow him to produce the answer-books and allow him to re-evaluate.
Judgment:
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the final verdict was in favor of student. The judges quoted that “Provisions of the RTI Act continue to prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws of the examining bodies in context of all exams. Hence, unless and until, the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer books are exempted category of information described in clause (e) of the Section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect.
2. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission (2013)
It is one of the landmark judgments on RTI Act. In this case, the petitioner had filed an RTI application with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. He wanted to seek details about an officer working at the RPFC office. The details were related to his appointment letter, salary details, documents related to disciplinary inquiries, moveable and immovable properties, gifts received by him and income tax returns of his assets and liabilities. But the request for these details was denied by the Central Information Commissioner on the basis of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The defendant had argued that the information sought is qualified to be personal information.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the information sought by the petitioner is qualified to be the personal information as defined in Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The bench was also of the opinion that the performance of an employee is the matter between the employee and the employer and normally these aspects fall under the expression of ‘personal information.’ In this case, the petitioner was unable to demonstrate a bona fide public interest in seeking information and thus the court had dismissed the petition.
3. Karnataka Information Commissioner Vs. PIO (HC) (2013)
This has been one of the important and latest judgments of Supreme Courts on Right to Information Act. An RTI applicant had requested Karnataka High Court for bringing certified copies of documents/information regarding guidelines and rules pertaining to the scrutiny and classification of writ petitions. But the PIO had refused his request saying that he should seek information under the Karnataka High Court rules. When the matter went to the State Information Commission, it had disagreed with the PIO and ordered that the information has to be provided under the RTI Act. The Commission challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The information commissioner had filed this petition.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court was offended with the petition filed by an Information Commissioner. It said that the commissioner have no locus standi and were wasting public money by challenging the order. It had imposed a cost of Rs. 1, 00,000 on the commission. This harsh snub by the Supreme Court had silenced the Information Commissions into not questioning the courts.
4. Canara Bank Vs. CS Shyam (2009)
It is one of the landmark judgments on RTI Act. Canara Bank which is a Nationalised bank and a prestigious institution in Delhi had called out the orders passed by the Central Information Commission. On the request made by the second respondent in the writ petition, it had directed the bank to furnish important information as requested by the second respondent. A respondent had submitted an application to the Public Information Officer of the appellant Bank under Section 6 of the Act. It had also sought information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff from 1.01.2002 to 31.07.2006 in all the branches of the appellant bank.
Judgment:
With this latest judgment of Supreme court on Right to Information Act, the Supreme Court held that under Section 11 (1), information relates to or has been supplied by a third party is treated confidential. In case, the Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Officer intends to disclose such information, then after the written notice to the third party of the request, the officer can disclose the information. So, Section 11 is not an exemption, but it’s just a procedural provision to safeguard the interest of the third party. The Court’s statement implies that if third party objects to the disclosure of information, then it can only be given if there is a larger public interest in disclosure.
5. R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (2013)
It is one of the Supreme Court’s latest judgments of Supreme Court on Right to Information Act. Mr. R.K. had applied to the Information Officer for copies of all Note sheets and correspondence pages of a file related to Miss Jyoti Balasundram who was the Judicial Member of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the information sought was denied by the Central Public Information Officer on the grounds that the requested file had contained the analysis of Miss Jyoti Bapasundram’s ACR which was personal information. The officer also said that the disclosure of such information is exempt under Section 8(i) (j) of the RTI Act. Subsequent appeals to the Director and Appellate Authority and Central Information Commission were rejected on the basis that it was personal information that can only be disclosed if there is an overriding interest in the dissemination of such information. He had then appealed to High Court which rejected the application and then he moved to the Supreme Court.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court had held that information related to charges, penalties or sanctions imposed on an employee and records containing information of such nature or incidental were necessarily a matter between employee and employer the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. So here the point of dissemination of the information that would outweigh the privacy of the person on whom the information was sought was overruled. Hence, the Supreme Court in the present case reiterated its precedent, dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the findings of the Division Bench.
6. The CPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr.
A Single Judge of Delhi High Court was dealing with the issue about declaration of personal assets of judges of the Supreme Court. In a full court meeting held in 1997, a resolution was passed stating that all judges of the Supreme Court of India declare their assets to the Chief Justice of India. In 2009, an activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had sought a copy of the resolution from the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (CPIO). He had also sought details of the assets of the Chief Justices of various High Courts. But, the request was denied by the CPIO. Hence, he had approached Central Information Commission. The Single judge bench of the Delhi High Court had upheld the CIC ruling saying that CJI comes under the ambit of the RTI Act. However, CPIO challenged the Delhi High Court judgment by filing an appeal with Supreme Court of India.
Judgment: After a decade long wait, finally on 13th November 2019, the Supreme Court of India held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the definition of ‘public authority’ in the Right to Information Act, upholding the landmark judgment of Delhi High Court. Majority of judges had held that CJI’s office should be brought under the RTI Act 2005 because public interest is foremost.
Read latest legal guide on how to read judgments effectively.
FAQs:
Q1. What is RTI Act 2005?
Ans. RTI Act 2005 is an Act to set the practical regime of right to information for citizens in order to secure access to information under the control of public authorities. The Act promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commission.
Q2. Mention procedure for obtaining information, steps if the information is not received.
Ans. RTI Act 2005 has 5 schedules.
Q3. When was RTI Act enacted in India?
Ans. RTI Act received presidential assent on 15th June 2005 and came into force on 12th October 2005.
Q4. Who can impose penalties under RTI Act?Ans. Under the RTI Act 2005, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose penalty on the Central Public Information Officer.
Q5. Mention procedure for obtaining information under RTI Act 2005.
Ans. An applicant who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act can simply file an appeal on https://rtionline.gov.in/. Right after clicking at “Submit Request”, the applicant needs to fill in the required details on the page that will appear. After filling the form, click on “Make Payment” to make payment of the prescribed fee. An applicant can mention his/her mobile number to receive SMS alert. Status of RTI application can be seen by the applicant by clicking at “View Status.”
Q6. What can you do if the required information is not sought under RTI Act 2005?Ans. If the CPIO of Public Authority refuses to accept RTI Application under RTI Act 2005, then you can file a complaint with the Central Information Commission. The Appellate Authority has a duty to give a written decision on your appeal within forty five days.
Get in touch with Legitquest and enhance your legal research skills!
