Right to Information: Summary | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Introduction

Right to information has been seen as the key to strengthening participatory democracy and ushering in people centred governance. Access to information can empower the poor and the weaker sections of society to demand and get information about public policies and actions, thereby leading to their welfare. In a fundamental sense Right to Information is a necessity for good governance.

Recommendations on Official Secrets Act

• The Official Secrets Act, 1923 should be repealed, and substituted by a chapter in the National Security Act, containing provisions relating to official secrets.
• The Shourie Committee recommended a comprehensive amendment of Section 5(1) to make the penal provisions of OSA applicable only to violations affecting national security.

Governmental Privilege in Evidence

• Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should be amended.
• Accordingly, the following will have to be inserted at the appropriate place in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

“Any person aggrieved by the decision of any Court subordinate to the High Court rejecting a claim for privilege made under section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall have a right to appeal to the High Court against such decision, and such appeal may be filed notwithstanding the fact that the proceeding in which the decision was pronounced by the Court is still pending.”

The Oath of Secrecy

• As an affirmation of the importance of transparency in public affairs, Ministers on assumption of office may take an oath of transparency along with the oath of office and the requirement of administering the oath of secrecy should be dispensed with. Articles 75(4) and 164 (3) and the Third Schedule should be suitably amended.
• Safeguard against disclosure of information against the national interest may be provided through written undertaking by incorporation of a clause in the national security law dealing with official secrets.

Exempted Organizations

1. The Armed Forces should be included in the Second Schedule of the Act. Since, public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests; by including Armed Forces in the Second Schedule, while national security is safeguarded, disclosure is still mandatory when public interest demands it.
2. The Second Schedule of the Act (which contains exempted organizations) may be reviewed periodically.
3. All organizations listed in the Second Schedule have to appoint PIOs. Appeals against orders of PIOs should lie with CIC/SICs. (This provision can be made by way of removal of difficulties under section 30).

The Central Civil Services (conduct) Rules

The Commission agrees with the views of the Shourie Committee. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules were formulated when the RTI Act did not exist. The spirit of these Rules is to hold back information. With the emergence of an era of freedom of information, these Rules would have to be recast so that dissemination of information is the rule and holding back information is an exception.

Implementation of The Right To Information Act

Section 12 of the Act may be amended to constitute the Selection Committee of CIC with the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. Section 15 may be similarly amended to constitute the Selection Committee at the State level with the Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Designating Information Officers and Appellate Authorities

• All Ministries/Departments/Agencies/Offices with more than one PIO have to designate a nodal Assistant Public Information Officer with the authority to receive requests for information on behalf of all PIOs. Such a provision should be incorporated in the Rules by appropriate governments.
• PIOs in Central Secretariats should be of the level of at least Deputy Secretary /Director. In State Secretariats, officers of similar rank should be notified as PIOs. In all subordinate agencies and departments, officers sufficiently senior in rank and yet accessible to public may be designated as PIOs.
• All public authorities may be advised by the Government of India that along with the Public Information Officers they should also designate the appellate authority and publish both, together.
• The designation and notification of Appellate Authorities for each public authority may be made either under Rules or by invoking Section 30 of the Act.

Recommendation on Organising Information and Record Keeping

1. Suo motu disclosures should also be available in the form of printed, priced publication in the official language, revised periodically (at least once a year). Such a publication should be available for reference, free of charge. In respect of electronic disclosures, NIC should provide a single portal through which disclosures of all public authorities under appropriate governments could be accessed, to facilitate easy availability of information.
2. Public Records Offices should be established as an independent authority in GOI and all States within 6 months by integrating and restructuring the multiple agencies currently involved in record keeping. This Office will be a repository of technical and professional expertise in management of public records. It will be responsible for supervision, monitoring, control and inspection of record keeping in all public offices.
3. As a one time measure, GOI may create a Land Records Modernisation Fund for survey and updation of all land records. The quantum of assistance for each State would be based on an assessment of the field situation.

Recommendations on Capacity Building and Awareness Generation

1. Training programmes should not be confined to merely PIOs and APIOs. All government functionaries should be imparted at least one day training on Right to Information within a year. These training programmes have to be organized in a decentralized manner in every block. A cascading model could be adopted with a batch of master trainers in each district.
2. The CIC and the SICs may issue guidelines for the benefit of public authorities and public officials in particular and public in general about key concepts in the Act and approach to be taken in response to information requests on the lines of the Awareness Guidance Series.

Recommendations on Monitoring Mechanism

1. The CIC and the SICs may be entrusted with the task of monitoring effective implementation of the Right to Information Act in all public authorities. (An appropriate provision could be made under Section 30 by way of removal of difficulties).
2. As a large number of Public Authorities exist at regional, state, district and sub district level, a nodal officer should be identified wherever necessary by the appropriate monitoring authority (CIC/SIC) to monitor implementation of the Act.
3. Each public authority should be responsible for compliance of provisions of the Act in its own office as well as that of the subordinate public authorities
4. A National Coordination Committee (NCC) may be set up under the chairpersonship of the Chief Information Commissioner with the nodal Union Ministry, the SICs and representatives of States as members. A provision to this effect may be made under Section 30 of the Act by way of removing difficulties. 

The National Coordination Committee would:

• Serve as a national platform for effective implementation of the Act.
• Document and disseminate best practices in India and elsewhere.
• Monitor the creation and functioning of the national portal for Right to Information.
• Review the Rules and Executive orders issued by the appropriate governments under the Act.
• Carry out impact evaluation of the implementation of the Act.
• Perform such other relevant functions as may be deemed necessary.

Recommendation on Issues in implementation

• In addition to the existing modes of payment, appropriate governments should amend the Rules to include payment through postal orders.
• States may be required to frame Rules regarding application fee which are in harmony with the Central Rules. It needs to be ensured that the fee itself does not become a disincentive.
• Appropriate governments may restructure the fees (including additional fees) in multiples of Rs 5. {E.g. instead of prescribing a fee of Rs. 2 per additional page it may be desirable to have a fee of Rs. 5 for every 3 pages or part thereof}.
• State Governments may issue appropriate stamps in suitable denominations as a mode of payment of fees. Such stamps would be used for making applications before public authorities coming within the purview of State Governments.
• As all the post offices in the country have already been authorized to function as APIOs on behalf of Union Ministries/Departments, they may also be authorized to collect the fees in cash and forward a receipt along with the application.

Inventory of Public Authorities

• At the Government of India level the Department of Personnel and Training has been identified as the nodal department for implementation of the RTI Act. This nodal department should have a complete list of all Union Ministries/ Departments which function as public authorities.
• Each Union Ministry/ Department should also have an exhaustive list of all public authorities, which come within its purview. 

The public authorities coming under each ministry/ department should be classified into:

1. Constitutional bodies
2. Line agencies
3. Statutory bodies
4. Public sector undertakings
5. Bodies created under executive orders
6. Bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed
7. NGOs substantially financed by government.

• Within each category an up-to date list of all public authorities has to be maintained.
• Each public authority should have the details of all public authorities subordinate to it at the immediately next level. This should continue till the last level is reached.

Recommendation on Single Window Agency at District Level

1. A single window agency should be set up in each district. This could be achieved by creating a cell in a district-level office, and designating an officer as the assistant public information officer for all public authorities served by the single window agency.
2. The office of the District Collector/ Deputy Commissioner, or the Zilla Parishad is well suited for location of the cell.

Recommendation on Subordinate Dield Ooffices and Ppublic Authorities

1. The definition of public authorities would extend the spread of public authorities to the level of panchayats and village patwaris across the country.
2. The public authorities at the lower end of the administrative and/or functional hierarchies need to be identified to discharge responsibilities under Section 4 of the Act, as they are closest to the people both physically and functionally.

Application to Non-Governmental Bodies

1. Organisations which perform functions of a public nature that are ordinarily performed by government or its agencies, and those which enjoy natural monopoly may be brought within the purview of the Act.
2. Norms should be laid down that any institution or body that has received 50% of its annual operating costs, or a sum equal to or greater than Rs.1 crore during any of the preceding 3 years should be understood to have obtained ‘substantial funding’ from the government for the period and purpose of such funding.
3. Any information which, if it were held by the government, would be subject to disclosure under the law, must remain subject to such disclosure even when it is transferred to a non-government body or institution.
4. This could be achieved by way of removal of difficulties under section 30 of the Act.

Time Limit for Information

• The stipulation of making available 20-year old records on request should be applicable only to those public records which need to be preserved for such a period. In respect of all other records, the period of availability will be limited to the period for which they should be preserved under the record keeping procedures.
• If any public authority intends to reduce the period up to which any category of record is to be kept, it shall do so after taking concurrence of the Public Records Office.

Mechanism for Redressal of Public Grievances

States may be advised to set up independent public grievances redressal authorities to deal with complaints of delay, harassment or corruption. These authorities should work in close coordination with the SICs/District single window agencies, and help citizens use information as a tool to fight against corruption and misgovernance, or for better services.

Application of the Act to the Legislature and Judiciary

1. A system of indexing and cataloguing of records of the legislatures, which facilitates easy access, should be put in place. This could be best achieved by digitising all the records and providing access to citizens with facilities for retrieving records based on intelligible searches.
2. A tracking mechanism needs to be developed so that the action taken by the executive branch on various reports like CAG, Commissions of Enquiry and House Committees is available to legislators and public, online.
3. The working of the legislative committees should be thrown open to the public. The presiding officer of the committee, if required in the interest of State or privacy, may hold proceedings in camera.
4. The records at the district court and the subordinate courts should be stored in a scientific way, by adopting uniform norms for indexing and cataloguing.
5. The administrative processes in the district and the subordinate courts should be computerised in a time bound manner. These processes should be totally in the public domain.

Removal of Difficulties

• All organisations listed in the Second Schedule have to appoint PIOs. Appeals against orders of PIOs should lie with CIC/SICs.
• Provision should be made to include annual confidential reports, examination question papers and related matters in the exemptions under the RTI Act.
• Provision has to be made for designation and notification of Appellate Authority for each public authority.
• The CIC and the SICs should be entrusted with the task of monitoring effective implementation of Right to Information in all public authorities.
• A National Coordination Committee (NCC) may be set up under the chairpersonship of the chief information commissioner with the nodal union ministry, the SICs and representatives of States as members. A provision to this effect may be made under Section 30 of the Act by way of removing difficulties.
• The following norms should be followed for determining applicability of the Act to nongovernmental organizations.
• Organisations which perform functions that are ordinarily performed by government or its agencies, and those which enjoy natural monopoly should be brought within the purview of the Act.
• Norms should be laid that any institution or body that has received 50% of its annual operating costs, or a sum equal to or greater than Rs.1 crore, during any of the preceding 3 years should be understood to have obtained ‘substantial funding’ from the government for the period and purpose of such funding.
• Any information which, if it were held by the government, would be subject to disclosure under the law, must remain subject to such disclosure even when it is transferred to a non-government body or institution.
• The stipulation of making available 20-year old records on request should be applicable only to those public records which need to be preserved for such a period. In respect of all other records, the period of availability will be limited to the period for which they should be preserved under the record keeping procedures. If any public authority intends to reduce the period up to which any category of record is to be kept, it shall do so after taking concurrence of the CIC/SIC as the case may be.
• It may be provided that information can be denied if the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the public authority. Provided that such a refusal shall be communicated within 15 days of receipt of application, with the prior approval of the appellate authority.
• Provided further that all such refusals shall stand transferred to CIC/SIC, as the case may be and the CIC/SIC shall dispose the case as if it is an appeal under section 19(3) of the RTI Act.

Performance of the Report

Recently, newspapers published a report prepared by Satark Nagrik sangathan and the centre for equity studies regarding RTI act performance and implementation\

1. Government officials face hardly any punishment for violating the law by
2. denying applicants the legitimate information sought by them, as per the report.
3. In 97% of the cases, the courts of appeal under the RTI act- central and state information commissions, failed to impose penalties for violations that happened in the year 2018-19.
4. The failure of the commissions to impose penalties is sending signals to the Public Information officers (PIO) that violating the law will not invite any serious consequences.
5. This state of affairs promotes a culture of impunity and exasperates applicants who seek information at a high cost and often against great odds.
6. The laxity in imposing penalties allows PIOs to take liberties with the RTI act, at the cost of the public.
7. And, this is also resulting in increased workload of the commissions, due to the appeals, leading to a huge pendency of the cases. As of today, there are 33, 000 pending cases. This is further exacerbated due to the vacancies in the central Information commission.

The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019:

It was introduced in the Lok Sabha in July, 2019 and got passed by both houses of parliament. It seeks to amend the RTI act-2005. And its key features:

1. The bill states that the central government will notify the term of office for the CICs and the ICs. The earlier act provides for five-year term to CICs and ICs, now the bill replaces this provision.
2. It states that the salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the central and state CICs and ICs will be determined by the central government.
3. The bill removes the salary deduction provisions of those who are receiving pensions or any other retirement benefits for previous government service at the time of appointment of the CICs and ICs of centre and state level.