COVER PAGE

NAME OF THE AUTHOR: ABHAY SINGH (3RD YEAR BBA.LLB)

AFFILIATION: NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ORISSA, CUTTACK

E-MAIL ADDRESS: abhaynluo@gmail.com

POSTAL ADDRESS: NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY BOYS HOSTEL, ROOM NO. 230-A, KATHAJODI CAMPUS, NARAJ, CUTTACK, ODISHA. 754006

CONTACT NUMBER: +91 9439906263

RIGHT TO INFORMATION: A TOOL TO REMOVE THE VEIL

INTRODUCTION Transparency in the affairs of the state is very important. It is a fact knows that Secrecy facilitates the practice of corruption while transparency prompts and promotes fairness and accountability. Thus the Right to Information is an effective tool in the hands citizens and a powerful tool in the hands of citizens and a powerful means to contain deep-rooted corruption in Government. For Governments, sharing information is not an easy task. Both external and internal pressures have their influences in adoption of laws related to right to information worldwide. At present approximately 70 countries in the world have enacted the Right to Information laws enabling access to records of Governments and another 50 countries are in the process of evolving the same.1

Hence, Mr. Jankari headed off to the workplace of the Chief Engineer, Centre Information Commission (Dwarka Venture, New Delhi) to document a requisition in association with a water emergency. The petitioner was regulated to meet the Assistant to Chief Engineer. The Assistant marked the requisition and stamped it to the Public Information. The PIO asked the petitioner to submit a measure of Rs. 10/- in money, as the Indian Postal Order (IPO) won't be satisfactory due to a bookkeeping issue. The requisition was then stamped to Senior Accounts Officer. He thus stamped it to the Accountant and afterward to the Receipt Representative. The application was then checked to Senior Accounts Officer. He thusly checked it to the Accountant and after that to the Receipt Assistant. The receipt Clerk essentially declined to acknowledge the requisition and asked candidate to carry a photocopy of the receipt for Rs. 10/- to be appended with the provision as confirmation of instalment of the imperative charge. The methodology along these lines took almost 3 hrs.to basically index a requisition. Of the cases which have been accounted for and arbitrated by the Central Data Commissioner New Delhi, this case delineates overbearing from open powers to seekers who look for data. It has been recognized that the PIO or people in general powers dependably attempt to control the setup in their support, on the grounds that the strategy for
1

N Sudarshan, (eds.) Right to Information: Indian and International Perspective, pg. 29. (The ICFAI University, India, 1st ed. 2007).

the issue of instalment of expense under Section 62 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is uniform, as well as furnishes chance to the PIOs/public powers to pester seekers. It is well realized that there is no consistency in the instalment of provision expense and different charges, payable under the Rules confined by different subordinate powers. The Central Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005 provides that [update] a fee of Rs. 10 for filing the request. Provided that the petitioner is a Below Poverty Line (BPL) Card holder, then no expense need to be paid. Such BPL Card holders need to furnish a duplicate of their BPL card on top of their requisition to the Public Authority. State Governments furthermore High Courts have formed their own peculiar fee/charges manages on the subject. 20063 visualizes that any individual looking for data under the Act, should make a requisition in Form "A" to the Authorized Person on top of non-judicial stamp, of Rs. 100 properly fastened on/attached to it, which ought to be non-refundable. In any case where the data identifies with delicate documents/bids/ quotation/business contract, the requisition charge might be Rs. 500 for every requisition. The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Central Rules2005 stipulates the instalment of recommended charge, plus provision under. It has likewise been watched that the majorityof the Public Information Officer/APIOs does not acknowledge money, which is the most helpful mode of instalmentof charge. At the same time PIOs/APIOs continuously demands aspirant either to store or Bank Draft or Money Request or chalan. The procedure of obtaining, Bank Draft, or Money request, is prolonged and the petitioner is solicited to experience extra budgetary load by paying charges for IPO, MO or Bank Draft.

DEVELOPMENT OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION In an important case Justice Mathew remarked that the right to free speech is inclusive of the right of the community to hear and that right to free speech includes the right of the community to read and be informed. This covers right to library and information services and right to information on governments functioning. The Supreme Court of India in State of Uttar Pradesh v.Raj Narain4has recognized as early as in 1975 the right to information as an

2 3

Section 6, Right to Information Act, 2005. Rule 4 Application for seeking information. 4 Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain,AIR 1975 SC 865.

important right in a democratic state. The court, while examining the scope and objectives of right to information under Article 19(1) (a)5 of the Constitution, opined that: In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agentsof public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be few secrets, everything that is done in a public way by the public functionaries. They are entitled to know, the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. Their right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor, which should make one wary when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can at any rate have no repercussion on public security. To cover with veil secrecy, the common routine business is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. It is generally desired for purpose of parties and politics or personal self-interest or bureaucratic routine. The reasonability of officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption But the demand for RTI began with the mass movement at the grassroots level in many places in India. A mass based organization called the MazdoorKisanShakiSangathan (MKSS) took an initiative in establishing small village libraries which functioned as Community Information Centres. The people became informed and capable of understanding the development issues related to their village. On paper various small projects were recorded as complete but it was common knowledge that there was gross misappropriation of funds. After years of knocking at officials doors, MKSS succeeded in getting the photocopies of certain relevant documents. Misappropriation of funds was clearly obvious. MKSS organized a peoples hearing, the first ever in the history of India. Between December 1994 and 1995, several other Public hearings were organized. Peoples anger made one engineer of the State Electricity Board to return in public an amount of Rs. 15000. This movement spread fast to other areas and states establishing firmly that information is power and people should have the right to official information. Various states enacted RTI legislation. Under pressure from civil society groups, more than a hundred amendments were made when the act was finally passed on 12 October 2005.

Article 19, The Indian Constitution, 1950.

RTI ACT VIS-A-VIS OFFICIAL SECRET ACT, 1923 RTI has widely proclaimed that right to information is a fundamental tight by both Article 19 (1) (a)6 and Article 217 of the Indian Constitution. But in practice Section 8 (2)8 and Section 229 of RTI Act water down the provisions of Official Secrets Act, 1923. The underlying current in the enactment of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 was to arrest spying. Section 3 10 envisages the penalties for spying. Spying occurs when anyone approaches, inspects, passes over or enters any prohibited place or makes any sketch, plan, model or note intended to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy. Spying also includes obtaining or collecting records or publishing or communicating to any other person any secret official code or password which is calculated to be or intended to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy or a matter relating to the disclosure which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India as well as the security or the friendly relationship with a foreign state.11 Section 3 envisages 14 years punishment in certain cases and 3 years punishment in other cases for spying. However, there shall be means rea viz. that the activity shall be for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. But, it would be sufficient if it appears that the purpose was purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. In a case under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, it is not necessary to prove that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State.12 The evidence relating to the accused communication or attempting to communicating or attempting to communicate with a foreign agent is relevant for the purpose of enquiry for an offence under section 3. Section 4 further envisages that the court may presume that the accused has communicated with a foreign agent if the accused visited the place of a foreign agent or if the name or address of a foreign agent has been found in possession. A person who has been in possession of any secret official code or password or other pieces of secret information, wilfully communicating the same to a foreign agent or using the information in

6 7

Id. Article 21, Indian Constitution, 1950. 8 Section 8, Right to Information Act, 2005. 9 Section 22, Right to Information Act, 2005. 10 Section 3 of Official Secret Act, 1923. 11 Ram Swaroop v. State, 1986 Crl. LJ 526 (Del). 12 On a prosecution for an offence punishable under this section 1 it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the state.

his possession for the benefit of any foreign power is considered to be guilty of committing the offence of wrongful communication of information punishable under section 5 of the Officer Secret Act. Section 513 imposes a maximum punishment of 3 years in such cases. Section 614 imposes punishment for unauthorised use of uniforms, falsification of reports, forgery, personation and false documents if it is for the purpose of gaining admission to a prohibited place. Section 2 (8)15 of the act defines prohibited places as ones where ammunition is stored. Again punishment to a maximum extent of 3 years is given for such unauthorized use of uniform, etc. Provisions under section 716 and 8 are curious in the sense that they bestow duty upon the citizens to help the concerned authorities, unlike other statutes, which speak of rights of citizens and offences by citizens. Section 10 prescribes harbouring spies and provides punishment. Section 1317 provides for procedural aspects. This briefly is the scheme of the Official Secret Act. On the other hand section 8 (2) of the RTI Act envisages that a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest, notwithstanding Official Secret Act, 1923. Section 22 of RTI Act ordains that the provisions of the Act have overriding effect in as much as they are inconsistent with the Official Secret Act, 1923 and any other law. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act mentions exemptions to the liability on the failure or refusal to furnish information. The basic concept of RTI Act is that every citizen shall have access to information under the control of public authorities to promote transparency as well as accountability. However, the authorities can refuse furnishing information to a citizen if the authority considers that such disclosure would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. Again if the public authority considers that he need not furnish information in view of the exemptions provided by section 8 (1) (a) and also in view of the embargo under the Official Secret Act, 1923, but if such public authority nevertheless considers that the disclosure of the information would be in the public interest and it outweighs the harm such disclosure would cause he may disclose such information. The other provision in the RTI Act, which touches upon the Official Secret Act, is section 22. Section 22 of the RTI Act adumbrates that the provisions of the RTI Act, prevails over any
13 14

Section 5 of Official Secret Act, 1923. Section 6 of Official Secret Act, 1923. 15 Section 2 of Official Secret Act, 1923. 16 Section 7 of Official Secret Act, 1923. 17 Section 13 of Official Secret Act, 1923.

provision which is inconsistent with the Official Secret Act, or any other law for the time being in force. Section 22 is more drastic and wider vis-a-vis section 8 (2) of the Act. Again a careful reading of section 22 shows that RTI is given precedence over the Official Secret Act, in case of inconsistency. However, I do not find any inconsistency between the Official Secret Act and the RTI act in view of the exemption provided under section 8 (1) (a) in the RTI Act. More or less all the offences covered by Official Secret Act fall within one limb or the other, at least by way of liberal interpretation, of section 8 (1) (a), the Act. Where the provisions of the Act have already taken care of various offences under the Official Secret Act relegating them to the exemption clause, there in fact is no inconsistency between the Official Secret Act and the RTI Act. Indeed, RTI Act provides as much as the Official Secret Act. RTI Act provides for not furnishing information within the given time. On the contrary, theOfficial Secret Act provides penalties for disclosing information, which ought not to have been revealed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Official Secret Act has become redundant. AN OVERVIEW OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 The Right to Information Act came into existence after receiving the Presidents assent on October 12, 2005. This RTI act not only it covers the state, central and local authorities but is also includes judiciary and legislature into its ambit. This act is not restricted to public sector but it also includes private sector. The Act defines information18as information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. Not all disclosure of information is necessary; power has been given by legislature not to disclose any information which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with the foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; or information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.The Act accommodates the setting up of autonomous Information Commissions, one at the Centre and one each in the states, containing one Chief
18

Section 2(i) record includes (a)any document, manuscript and file; (b)any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (c)any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and (d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device;

Information Commissioner also up to ten Information Commissioners.Complaints against violations of procurements could be made to the Information Commissioner. Public Information Officers (PIOs) are likewise designated to acknowledge orders and give information inside 30 days in the wake of gaining such protest. Enlargements are likewise permitted in a few cases, for example when alternate gathering is included. Information relating to the life and emancipation of an individual must, all things considered, be given in 48 hours. The Act stipulates punishments for Pios discovered to be in violation of the provisions. The data Commission can infringe punishments at the rate of Rs. 250 for every day, and likewise punish for refusals to acknowledge demands, for mala fide destruction of information, purposely giving false data and so forth, with and greatest farthest point of Rs. 25,000. Safety to PIOs for movements done in accordance with some basic honesty is likewise material under the provisions of the Act. OBSTACLES AGAINST RIGHT TO INFORMATION A Whistleblower may be communicated as somebody who uncovered wrongdoing, duplicity, defilement or blunder. As a rule, this could be an individual who works for the legislature who might report offense inside the legislature or it could be a representative of a privately owned business who reports degenerate practices inside the organization. The law that a legislature establishes to ensure such persons who help uncover defilement is known as an informant assurance law. A few nations have recently invested place laws to ensure informants or are at present completing so. Be that as it may, the level of insurance furthermore the route in which the law works varies from nation to nation. The US was one of the soonest to have the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, while the UK has the Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998, and Norway hasa similar law set up since January 2007.19 It is extremely clear past sensible mistrust that the RTI Act does not accommodate any security to the aspirants for utilization of the RTI. Despite the fact that the CIC is engaged to grant recompense for any provocation, risk or intimidation brought on to the petitioners for looking for data, in practice this procurement is not being used going full bore occasions of concealment of information and badgering of the workers and aspirants are on the increment. It is clear from the occurrences that has been happened in past that general society power has been attempting to stifle the data and force the aspirant on the off chance that the seeker is
19

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-03-29/india/28135662_1_publicinterest-disclosures-cvcprotection India doesnt have a law to protect whistleblower, visited on May 5, 2011

utilized in that association. The issue of assurance for informants got the consideration of the whole country when the National Highways Authority of India designer Mr. SatyendraDubey was executed after he composed a letter to the workplace of at that point Prime Minister Shri A B Vajpayee affirming debasement in the development of parkways.20 It is additionally clear from the arrangement of occasions where more than 10 RTI Activists have been killed for their animated contribution against degenerate exercises of functionaries, political pioneers and foremen's mafia in India. RTI activist AmitJethwa was slaughtered close to the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad. Other RTI exercises incorporates, for example DattaPatil of Kolhapur (Maharashtra), VitthalGite of Beed region, Maharashtra; Sola RangaRao of Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, ArunSawant of Badlapur, Maharashtra, Shashidhar Mishra of Begusarai, Bihar; VishramLaxmanDodiya of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, and SatishShetty of Pune, Maharashtra. Mr. ManjunathShanmugham, an IIM graduate and a deals administrator of the IOC, was additionally killed on Nov 19, 2005 for uncovering the racket of corruption of petrol and the mafia behind it.21 This record is not exhaustive also portrays a grave concern need to be taken mind immediately. The goals of the Act can't be accomplished unless RTI inquirers are secured from any provocation that may roll out from the operation of the RTI Act. Firstly it is prescribed that the Appellate Authority, the State Information requisition and the Central Information Commission ought to be engaged to honour praiseworthy harms in such cases. Also the Act might as well additionally accommodate some assurance to those workers who look for data from their associations. A few procurements on assurance of workers particularly easy, specially appointed, low maintenance and other makeshift representatives, on the issue, which may as well avert general society powers from ending the administrations of, aside from on a few genuine unfortunate behavior in the wake of following to the regulation of characteristic justice, such representatives for the operation of the RTI Act, ought to be embedded in the Act. The Sate Information Commission what's more the Central Information Commission ought to be engaged to take suomotto awareness of any such examples of exploitation and pass fitting request, on top of model recompense to the chumps, on the matter.

20 21

Id. Id.

FINAL THOUGHTS The RTI Act is an authentic and an uncommon establishment that distinguishes privileges of nationals for looking for data from open and chose private powers. The Act was ordered to make a defining moment in this country's popularity based improvement. It has long turned out to be a key segment of a sound majority rule government on the grounds that it enables residents with the right to request what exercises and choices are, no doubt made, to advertise national investment. The Act has offered have a specific end goal, which is to social order that lessens its defilement a whatsoever level of organization. The development has been picking up energy through the inventiveness and steadiness covered by activists in different States on its utilize The State Governments and Public Authorities are still all the while of making the required foundation in their areas of expertise to furnish data looked for by any org. Anyway the State RTI laws left much to be coveted in executing the establishment and they are liable to single person understanding in each one State. Movement against errant authorities is still subordinate on the recently ruined and unwieldy processes of the civil administration conduct tenets. It is summarized that the corrective procurement for the violation of Section 4 ought to be embedded in Section 20. There is a need to guarantee consistency in expense, cost of furnishing data and review charges payable by inquirer to the Public Authority under the Act. It is clear that method for installment of expense under the Act is mind boggling and badly arranged for general open, where they are solicited to pay expense by diverse modes, which gives chance to the PIOs to pester seekers. Money installment ought to be acknowledged as the main mode of installment of any expense payable under the Act, which is extremely helpful and petitioner is spared from bureaucratic harass in appreciation to installment of provision charge /inspection/appeal expense through different modes. On the other hand the creator emphatically prescribes that applicantought not to be charged anything for submitting requisition under the RTI Act, 2005. It is likewise watched that the Act does not give any particular capabilities for the designation of the APIOs/PIOs, thusly it is firmly suggested that perpetual representative, not easy, or low maintenance or specially appointed then again impermanent representative ought to be designated as PIO/APIO. It is obvious from the existing ground actuality that temporary/ad-hoc representatives are manikin in the hands of open power and they can never go against the investment of their associations and can't adequately authorize the suitable branch to outfit alluring data under the RTI Act, generally

their occupation might be at stake. Further imposition of penalty on them, in case of violation of any provision of the Act, would aggravate their condition. It is demonstrated certain that the Right to Information Act has come to be a "Brahmastra" (weapon) of overall population against degenerate functionaries. The right to information has unquestionably made an effect on responsibility furthermore transparency in the organization of the country. The Act, if adequately executed, could change the way of administration in the country. The procedure of transparency and responsibility in the administrative foundations ought to be launched on necessity, which might carry a feeling of strengthening to the residents as to confirm the legislature's execution and responsibility. Right to information is an aspect of the principle of responsibility and transparency, which is in grown structure and need to be fed well for successful and effective usage. Mindfulness in regards to the procurements of the Act ought to be made through different method of media. Triumph of the project hinges on the readiness of the nationals. Legitimate engendering what's more advancement of the subject is the key in diminishing debasement and promotingtransparency and responsibility in the period of globalization and liberalization.