Detailed-Analysis-On-Right-to-Information-Act-2005

View News

Submit Query

10 May 2023

Detailed-Analysis-On-Right-to-Information-Act-2005

Exploring the Right to Information Act, 2005: Detailed Analysis of Sections, Legal Provisions, and a Famous Case Study

Introduction:

The Right to Information Act, 2005, commonly known as RTI Act, is an Indian legislation that provides for the transparency and accountability of the government and its functioning. The Act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities and is a vital tool in promoting good governance and reducing corruption. This article aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Background:

Before the enactment of the RTI Act, access to information was restricted, and there was no law that mandated disclosure of information by public authorities. The idea of a law providing for the right to information gained momentum in the late 1990s, and in 2002, the government appointed a committee to draft a legislation on the same. The RTI Act was finally passed by the Indian Parliament in 2005 and came into force on October 12, 2005.

Scope and Applicability:

The RTI Act applies to all states and union territories of India, e~~xcept Jammu and Kashmir, which has its own RTI Act.~~ The Act covers all public authorities, including government departments, ministries, public sector undertakings, local bodies, and other organizations that are substantially financed by the government. Private entities are not covered under the Act.

To Be Noted:-

The central Right to Information Act, 2005 will now apply to the newly formed union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh after the revoking of Article 370. Previously, the state was governed by its own J&K RTI Act which only allowed residents to file RTI petitions. Although this move allows non-residents to file RTI petitions, it may provide reduced access to information as the state law was more powerful than the central one. The state initially enacted its own J&K RTI Act in 2004, which was later repealed and replaced with the J&K RTI Act, 2009 in line with the central Act.

Salient Features:

The RTI Act has several salient features that make it a powerful tool in promoting transparency and accountability. Some of the important features of the Act are:

Right to Information: The Act provides for the right to access information held by public authorities, subject to certain exemptions.

Time-bound Responses: The Act mandates that public authorities must respond to RTI requests within 30 days. In certain cases, this period can be extended by another 30 days.

Payment of Fees: Public authorities are permitted to charge a nominal fee for providing information under the Act. However, no fee is charged for information that concerns the life or liberty of a person.

Exemptions: The Act provides for certain exemptions where information can be denied, such as information that is detrimental to national security or that infringes on the privacy of an individual.

Appeals: The Act provides for a three-tiered appeals mechanism to ensure that citizens can challenge decisions of public authorities. The first appeal is made to a designated officer within the public authority, followed by a second appeal to the Information Commission, and finally, an appeal to the High Court.

Protection of Whistleblowers: The Act provides for the protection of whistleblowers who disclose information in the public interest.

Procedure for Seeking Information: The procedure for seeking information under the RTI Act is straightforward. The applicant must make a written request to the public authority, stating the information sought and paying the prescribed fee. The public authority must respond within 30 days, either by providing the information or by denying it and stating the reasons for denial.

Exemptions:

The RTI Act provides for certain exemptions where information can be denied. These include information that:

- Jeopardizes national security

- Is related to foreign relations or intelligence activities

- Impedes the process of investigation or prosecution of a crime

- Is protected by attorney-client privilege

- Infringes on the privacy of an individual

- Impedes the process of parliamentary or legislative privilege

- Is confidential or proprietary information of a third party

Penalties:

The RTI Act provides for penalties for public officials who do not comply with the provisions of the Act. If a public official:

Refuses to receive an RTI application
Refuses to give information
Intentionally gives incomplete, misleading or false information
Destroys information
Retaliates against a whistleblower

Then the Information Commission can impose a penalty

A Comprehensive Analysis of its Key Sections

Section 2: Definitions
This section provides definitions for various terms used in the Act, such as "appropriate government," "competent authority," "information," "public authority," "record," "right to information," "third party," etc.

Section 3: Right to Information
This section provides for the right to information and states that every citizen has the right to access information held by public authorities, subject to certain exemptions.

Section 4: Obligations of Public Authorities
This section mandates that public authorities must maintain records, publish certain information proactively, and provide information to citizens upon request. It also provides for the appointment of public information officers (PIOs) and assistant public information officers (APIOs) to facilitate the dissemination of information.

Section 5: Designation of Public Information Officers
This section provides for the appointment of PIOs and APIOs by public authorities. It also mandates that the names and contact information of these officers be made public.

Section 6: Request for Information
This section provides for the procedure for making a request for information. The request must be made in writing to the PIO or APIO and must contain the name and contact information of the applicant, as well as the information sought. The PIO or APIO must respond within 30 days.
Section 7: Disposal of Request
This section provides for the disposal of RTI requests by PIOs or APIOs. They must either provide the requested information or deny it and state the reasons for denial. In certain cases, they may also transfer the request to another public authority.

Section 8: Exemption from Disclosure of Information
This section provides for exemptions where information can be denied, such as information that is detrimental to national security or that infringes on the privacy of an individual.

Section 9: Grounds for Rejection to Access
This section provides for the grounds on which a request for information can be rejected, such as if the information is already in the public domain or if it is covered under another law that prohibits its disclosure.

Section 10: Severability
This section provides for the severability of information that is exempted from disclosure. If a portion of the information is exempted, the rest of the information must still be provided.

Section 11: Third Party Information
This section provides for the disclosure of information that pertains to a third party. The third party must be given notice of the request and an opportunity to make representations. In certain cases, the information may be disclosed despite the objections of the third party.

Section 12: Appeal
This section provides for the first appeal to be made to the designated officer within the public authority. If the first appeal is unsuccessful, a second appeal can be made to the Information Commission. In certain cases, an appeal can also be made directly to the Information Commission.

Section 13: Penalty
This section provides for penalties for public officials who do not comply with the provisions of the Act. If a public official refuses to receive an RTI application, refuses to give information, intentionally gives incomplete, misleading or false information, destroys information, or retaliates against a whistleblower, the Information Commission can impose a penalty.

Section 14: Direction for Disclosures
This section provides for the power of the Information Commission to issue directions for the disclosure of information. It also provides for the power of the Commission to order compensation to be paid to the applicant.

Section 15: Constitution of Central Information Commission
This section provides for the constitution of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.

Section 16: Constitution of State Information Commission
This section provides for the constitution of State Information Commission (SIC) and the appointment of the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners.

Section 17: Term of Office and Conditions of Service

This section provides for the term of office and conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at both the Central and State levels.

Section 18: Removal of Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner

This section provides for the removal of the Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner if they are found to have misbehaved, become incapacitated, or engaged in any other form of misconduct.

Section 19: Appeal and Hearing

This section provides for the hearing of appeals by the Information Commission. The Commission has the power to summon witnesses, examine documents, and hear evidence.

Section 20: Proceedings of Commission

This section provides for the procedure to be followed by the Information Commission while conducting hearings and making decisions.

Section 21: Procedure with Respect to Information

This section provides for the procedure to be followed by the Information Commission while ordering the disclosure of information.

Section 22: Protection of Action Taken in Good Faith

This section provides for protection against legal action for public officials who act in good faith while implementing the provisions of the Act.

Section 23: Bar on Jurisdiction of Courts

This section provides for the bar on the jurisdiction of courts with respect to matters covered by the Act.

Section 24: Act to Have Overriding Effect

This section provides for the overriding effect of the Act over any other law in force.

Section 25: Monitoring and Reporting

This section provides for the monitoring and reporting of the implementation of the Act by the Central and State Governments.

Section 26: Appropriate Government to Prepare Reports

This section mandates that the appropriate government prepare annual reports on the implementation of the Act and submit them to the Central Information Commission.

Section 27: Power to Make Rules

This section provides for the power of the appropriate government to make rules to implement the provisions of the Act.

Section 28: Power to Remove Difficulties

This section provides for the power of the Central Government to remove any difficulties in the implementation of the Act.

Section 29: Repeal and Saving

This section provides for the repeal of the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and the saving of any action taken under that Act.

The Satyendra Dubey Case: Highlighting the Importance of Whistleblower Protection and Transparency in Governance

One of the most famous case studies on the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the Satyendra Dubey case. Satyendra Dubey was a young engineer who was employed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and was tasked with the responsibility of supervising the construction of a stretch of the Golden Quadrilateral highway project.

Dubey discovered that several contractors were engaged in corrupt practices and had compromised on the quality of materials used in the construction of the highway. Dubey informed his superiors about the issue but no action was taken. In a bid to bring attention to the corruption, Dubey wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, detailing the corruption and requesting action.

However, instead of action, Dubey's letter was forwarded to the NHAI, which then revealed Dubey's identity to the contractors. Dubey was subsequently murdered in November 2003.

The case gained national attention and sparked outrage across the country. In response, the government enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2011 to protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

The case also brought to the forefront the importance of transparency and accountability in governance. The RTI Act, 2005 played a crucial role in enabling citizens to access information and hold public authorities accountable for their actions. In fact, Dubey had himself used the RTI Act to access information related to the highway project, which led to his discovery of the corruption.

The Satyendra Dubey case continues to be cited as an example of the need for strong whistleblower protection laws and the role that the RTI Act can play in promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

Conclusion

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a comprehensive legislation that provides for the right to information and regulates the manner in which public authorities must provide information to citizens. It also provides for the constitution and functioning of the Central and State Information Commissions, as well as the penalties for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. The Act has played a crucial role in promoting transparency and accountability in governance in India.

Article Compiled by:-

Mayank Garg

(LegalMantra.net Team)

+91 9582627751

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this material in spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition In no event the author shall be liable for any direct indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from or arising out of or in connection with the use of this information Many sources have been considered including newspapers, Journals, Bare Acts, Case Material. Charted Secretary etc.