From Right to Reality: Strengthening Right to Information Act

This Blog is Written by Amith Vikram Gir, 3rd Year, L.L.B, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

Blog 04 | Edition IX

The Citizen’s “Right to Know and Obtain Information”

The Right to Information Act, 2005, grants citizens a statutory right to request and access information from public authorities. It empowers citizens to hold the government accountable and demand operational transparency, public authorities cannot arbitrarily deny access or misapply Section 8 exemptions without reasonable justification. The Supreme Court has recognised Right to Information an Implicit Fundamental right of citizens. Right to Seek Information includes: Inspection of work, documents, records; Taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records; Taking certified samples of material Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device. The Right to Information is a fundamental right derived from the “right to freedom of speech and expression” under Article 19(1)(a) includes not only the right to freedom of speech and expression but also the right to seek and obtain information. “Right to know”  The  Supreme Court has recognised this right through State of UP v Raj Narain.

The Culture of Secrecy and the Common Administrative Tactics

The “Culture of Secrecy” within the bureaucracy must be confronted. The Public Information Officers reject request on frivolous grounds, vague reply, delay in providing information, impose disproportionate fees. The Penalties Provided in Section 20 of RTI Act should be applied to such Officials. Officials should also be better trained and encouraged to proactively publish information under Section 4 of RTI Act. A Normal Approach should be to disclose not to keep it Secret. The Public Authorities cannot merely claim confidentiality or impose sec 8 exemptions. A PIO cannot reject an entire RTI application by simply writing “Section 8 applies.” Section 10 of RTI act tells Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information and then furnished to applicant. Central Information Commission (CIC) which exceeds 40,000 pending appeals and complaints has exposed a massive loophole in India’s transparency regime. Because of this massive logjam, a second appeal routinely takes anywhere from 16 months to over two years just to get its first hearing. The primary legal reason for the delay is a loophole in the law itself. While the RTI Act, 2005 strictly mandates that Public Information Officers/SPIO/CPIO must respond within 30 days, the Act does not prescribe any statutory time limit for the CIC or State Information Commissions (SICs) to dispose of second appeals. Without a legally binding deadline, cases are scheduled on a first-come, first-served chronological basis, pushing new appeals to the absolute bottom of, for years to get its first hearing.  Under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the CIC has the power to penalize government officers up to ₹25,000 for deliberate delays or withholding information. However, data reveals that penalties are imposed in only about 5% of cases where violations occur. Because public officials rarely face financial consequences or disciplinary actions for ignoring RTI timelines, they continue to deny information casually, knowing the subsequent appeal will take years to catch up with them. Additionally, around 41% of second appeals are returned to citizens without an order due to minor technical errors or missing documents. Citizens are then forced to verify and resubmit their appeals, and restarting their waiting timeline from beginning.

A Transparency System with Grave Law Enforcement Failure

Over 100 RTI Activists have reportedly been killed since 2006.The first claim is supported by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), which documented 99 killings since 2006, along with 180 physical assaults and 187 incidents of threats or harassment, as reported by Front Line Defenders in August 2022.  The Government has also stated that it does not centrally maintain data on these cases, and the long-delayed implementation of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act remains unimplemented. A transparency system is meaningful only if those who use it are protected. When it fails to safeguard them, it reflects a grave failure of law enforcement and accountability. The unchecked physical threat directly deters citizens from raising sensitive questions regarding regional corruption, land scams, illegal mining and much more. “Transparency without protection is an invitation to retaliation rather than an instrument of public accountability.”

Conclusion

Democracy cannot breathe in the dark. The right to look into government files is not a  favour granted by the government; it is an fundamental right owned by the citizens who fund the government .The government must move past its institutional insecurity and remember that a transparent state is a strong state. It is time to restore the teeth of the RTI Act, Strengthen the Act and ensure that the voices of the people are never silenced by the walls of bureaucratic secrecy. The Right to Information Act (RTI) was not simply  handed to citizens without efforts. It emerged through sustained campaigning, public protests, grassroots organising, legal development, and finally Legislative action. This Law is not a gift from the government it is a hard won democratic achievement. The Citizens are active monitors of democracy.

(Write to the author at amitvikramgiri@gmail.com.)