Font size:
Print
Erosion of RTI: A Right Under Threat
Context:
The introduction of the Right to Information (RTI) Act was a landmark moment in India’s democratic journey, instilling hope among citizens by recognising them as the rightful rulers of the nation.
More on News
- The Act empowered them to seek information from the government with dignity and respect, creating an expectation that the long-missed swaraj (self-rule) would finally be delivered.
- Codifying the fundamental right to information, the RTI Act was hailed as one of the world’s most progressive transparency laws, expected to curb corruption and arbitrariness by making citizens active watchdogs over government functioning.
- However, nearly two decades later, the law has failed to meet expectations, and India’s democracy has not seen the anticipated improvement in transparency and accountability.
Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)
It is a landmark legislation in India that empowers citizens to access information from public authorities. Here’s an overview of its key features and objectives:
Key Features:
- Access to Information: The RTI Act allows any Indian citizen to request information from public authorities, which must respond within 30 days or 48 hours in matters concerning life and liberty.
- Public Authorities: The Act covers all constitutional authorities, government departments, public sector enterprises, and NGOs substantially funded by the government.
- Exemptions: Certain categories of information are exempt from disclosure, such as those affecting national security, foreign relations, and intellectual property rights.
- Information Commissions: The Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) oversee the implementation of the Act and handle appeals.
Governance and Process:
- Public Information Officers (PIOs): Each public authority designates PIOs who are responsible for providing information to citizens upon request.
- Appeal Mechanism: Citizens can appeal to the Appellate Authority if they are dissatisfied with the response from the PIO, and further to the Information Commissions if needed.
Initial Resistance from the Government
- Shifting Powers: Soon after its enactment, the government realised that the RTI Act was effectively shifting power from public servants to citizens.
- Amendments: Within a year, efforts were made to amend and weaken the law, but widespread protests by citizens forced the government to abandon these plans.
- However, what followed was a slow yet systematic erosion of the RTI’s effectiveness.
Challenges in Implementation
- ICs: To enforce the RTI Act, Information Commissions were established as the final appellate authorities.
- However, most positions of information commissioners were filled by retired bureaucrats—many of whom struggled to embrace the idea of transferring power to citizens.
- Instead of being selected for their commitment to transparency, many commissioners viewed these roles as comfortable post-retirement positions, working only a few hours a day.
- Disposal of Cases: While the national average of High Court judges’ case disposals exceeds 2,500 cases per year, RTI commissioners dispose of far fewer cases, despite the relatively lower complexity of RTI matters.
- Ideally, each commissioner should handle over 5,000 cases annually.
-
- Instead, rising pendency has resulted in delays of over a year, effectively converting the “Right to Information” into a “Right to History.”
- Penalties: Additionally, the penal provisions of the RTI Act—intended to hold officials accountable for wrongful denial of information—have been largely ignored by most commissioners.
- Governments have further undermined the Act by deliberately delaying appointments of commissioners, exacerbating backlogs and weakening the law’s effectiveness.
Judicial Interpretations and the Shift in Approach
- The RTI Act suffered a significant setback in August 2011 when the Supreme Court of India altered the approach to the law through its judgment in the Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors..
- The ruling stated that seeking information indiscriminately could obstruct national development and administrative efficiency.
- The Court suggested that RTI should not be misused to intimidate honest officials or disrupt governance.
- However, this assertion lacked factual backing and effectively painted RTI users as troublemakers rather than responsible citizens exercising their rights.
- The ruling provided justification for denying information and even emboldened attacks on RTI activists.
The ‘Personal Information’ Exemption and Its Consequences
Another major blow came in October 2012, with Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner & Ors. case.
- An RTI applicant sought information on memos, show-cause notices, and disciplinary actions against a public servant, as well as details of the official’s properties, investments, and financial dealings.
- The information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information unless it relates to public interest or its disclosure does not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
- However, the Court interpreted the law in a restrictive manner, refusing the request without assessing whether the information was linked to public activity or whether privacy was genuinely at risk.
- By selectively focusing on the phrase “personal information”, the Court set a precedent that severely limited citizens’ ability to scrutinise public officials.
- This ruling effectively amended the RTI Act without legislative approval, making it easier for authorities to deny information.
- It has since been used as a precedent in multiple cases, reducing RTI to what many now call “RDI”—the Right to Deny Information.”
Digital Personal Data Protection Act: A Further Setback
- The recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act has further weakened the RTI framework by amending the Act itself.
- By placing broader restrictions on access to public officials’ information under the guise of protecting personal data, it has reinforced the trend of limiting transparency.
