The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 25th February 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

The RTI is now the ‘right to deny information’

Why in News?

The effectiveness of the RTI Act is declining due to various factors, including bureaucratic resistance, judicial rulings, and legislative amendments.

Introduction and Initial Hope

• The RTI Act was initially seen as a beacon of hope for citizens, as it recognized their right to access government information.
• It was regarded as one of the best transparency laws globally, with the aim of reducing corruption and arbitrary decision-making.
• The Act empowered citizens to act as watchdogs over government actions.
• However, over time, the implementation of the Act has fallen short of public expectations, and there has not been a significant improvement in democratic accountability.

Early Resistance from the Government

• The government soon realized that the RTI Act transferred power from public servants to citizens.
• Within a year of its enactment, there were attempts to amend the Act in ways that would weaken its provisions.
• However, widespread public protests forced the government to withdraw these proposed amendments.

Erosion of the RTI Mechanism

• Information Commissions were set up as the final authorities for RTI implementation.
• Most commissioners appointed were retired bureaucrats who were not inclined to empower citizens.
• The selection process for commissioners did not prioritize individuals with expertise in transparency and governance.
• Many commissioners treated their roles as post-retirement perks and lacked commitment to their duties.

Delays and Inefficiency in RTI Processing

• High Court judges handle over 2,500 cases annually, whereas RTI commissioners clear significantly fewer cases.
• Given the simpler nature of RTI cases, each commissioner should ideally manage over 5,000 cases per year.
• The law stipulates a 30-day response period for government departments, but there is no such deadline for Information Commissions.
• This lack of a deadline has resulted in backlogs, often delaying responses for over a year, rendering the information obsolete by the time it is received.
• Citizens find it challenging to pursue delayed cases, further weakening the effectiveness of the Act.

Weak Enforcement of RTI Penal Provisions

• The RTI Act includes provisions to penalize officers who deny information.
• However, many commissioners are reluctant to impose penalties, leading to a lack of accountability.
• Governments exacerbate the situation by delaying the appointment of new commissioners, which contributes to increasing case backlogs.

Judicial Interpretations and Their Impact

• Courts have interpreted the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act in a manner that is not strict.
• In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted that indiscriminate RTI requests could impede administration and national development.
• This ruling fostered the perception that RTI usage is problematic, discouraging officials from responding to requests.

Impact of Personal Information Clause

• A crucial court ruling restricted access to personal information of public officials, impacting RTI requests.
• In one case, details about actions against a public servant were denied under the personal information exemption.
• The court did not assess whether the information was related to public activity or in the public interest.
• This ruling overlooked a provision stating that information accessible to Parliament should also be public.
• Consequently, this decision has been cited in various cases to deny information requests.

Concerns Over Legislative Changes

• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act has further undermined the RTI Act by limiting access to information.
• Legislative and judicial trends are shifting RTI towards becoming a Right to Deny Information (RDI).

Conclusion

• To maintain the RTI Act’s original intent, citizens and the media must actively defend it.
• Without public vigilance, fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution may be compromised.

Fencing out interfaith relationships in the new India

 Why in News?

• Background: On January 27, 2025, Uttarakhand became the first Indian state to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), aiming to promote gender justice and uniformity in personal laws. 
• Concerns: The implementation raises concerns about increased state control over interfaith relationships, reinforcing legal and societal barriers. Combined with anti-conversion laws, it could lead to greater restrictions on interfaith marriages. 

Existing Barriers to Interfaith Marriages

• Societal Resistance: Interfaith marriages in India face significant societal resistance. A 2014 survey revealed that fewer than 10% of urban Indians had family members who married outside their caste, and only 5% reported interfaith marriages in their families.
• Legal Scrutiny: The Special Marriage Act, 1954, requires a 30-day notice period, allowing public objections and scrutiny. Anti-conversion laws in various states further complicate the legal landscape for those converting for marriage.

Legal Hurdles and Bureaucratic Challenges

• Administrative Steps: Conversion for marriage now involves multiple administrative steps, including declarations, waiting periods, and approvals. These legal requirements have emboldened vigilante groups to intervene in personal relationships.
• Vigilante Activity: Complaints under anti-conversion laws are often filed by third-party groups, targeting individuals in interfaith relationships. These laws, rather than safeguarding individuals, create an environment for misuse by legal systems and police authorities.

Increased Scrutiny on Live-in Relationships

• Registration Requirements: The UCC introduces new rules for live-in relationships, making them subject to legal registration. Couples must submit a 16-page application, provide identification, and obtain approval from community or religious leaders.
• Family Notification: Family members must be informed of the relationship, adding potential risks for couples. Failure to register can result in imprisonment and fines, disproportionately affecting interfaith couples.

Impact of These Laws

• Strengthening Traditional Religious Institutions: Religious leaders gain legal power over personal relationships, contradicting constitutional guarantees of individual freedom in a secular democracy.
• Increased Control Over Women: Women in interfaith relationships are often viewed as lacking agency, with legal notifications to families increasing the risk of coercion and honor-based violence.
• Legalizing Vigilantism: Right-wing groups use legal frameworks to monitor and interfere in personal relationships. Public notices and approvals enable these groups to track and harass couples.

Growing Trend Across States

• The implementation of UCC in Uttarakhand may inspire other states to follow suit. Rajasthan has proposed similar measures for live-in relationship registration, and Gujarat is considering drafting a UCC.

Impact on Society

• The UCC, combined with anti-conversion laws, could lead to social segregation by creating legal barriers to interfaith unions. These measures undermine the pluralistic nature of Indian society and interfere with individuals' fundamental rights by restricting personal choices.