INTRODUCTION

The Right to Information Act of 2005 is an important milestone in encouraging accountability and openness. This law improves governance and promotes democratic engagement by providing citizens with access to government information. It requires public entities to respond to applications for information within a specified periods of time, which empowers underprivileged groups and combats corruption.

Chapter VI, extending from Section 21 to 31, includes miscellaneous provisions, such as defences, overriding effect and non-application of the Act, the bar of jurisdiction, monitoring and reporting, appropriate government and power to make rules, laying of rules and the power to remove difficulties. Successive to Chapter VI, the Act also annexes two Schedules wherein Schedule I provides for the Form of oath/affirmation made by the Chief Information Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioner, in line with Sections 13(3) and 16(3) of the Act. Schedule II, in consonance with Section 24, lists the intelligence and security organizations established by the Central Government of India to which the Right to Information Act does not apply.

CHAPTER VI

Section 21 of the Right to Information Act provides crucial protection to individuals acting in good faith under its provisions. It ensures that no legal action, including suits or prosecutions, can be initiated against anyone for actions performed or intended to be performed in accordance with the Act or its associated rules. This safeguard is fundamental in fostering an environment where public officials and citizens can confidently engage in accessing and disseminating information without fear of reprisal.

Section 22 underscores the overarching authority of the Act over any conflicting laws or regulations. Specifically, it asserts that the provisions of the Act hold precedence despite any inconsistencies found in the Official Secrets Act of 1923 or any other existing laws or legal instruments. This provision is critical in ensuring that the right of access to information prevails over potential obstacles posed by secrecy laws or other statutes that might otherwise hinder transparency and accountability in governance.

In the case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Court held that Section 22 of the RTI Act states its provisions prevail over other laws. Thus, examining bodies must provide evaluated answer-books unless exempt under section 8(1)(e). This does not establish a fiduciary relationship with examinees. Courts ruled that answer sheets are information accessible under RTI.[i]

Furthermore, Section 23 restricts the jurisdiction of courts concerning orders made under the Act. It explicitly states that no court can entertain suits, applications, or any other legal proceedings related to such orders, except through the appeal process specified within the Act itself. This limitation aims to streamline the resolution of disputes arising from the implementation of the Act and prevents unnecessary legal challenges that could otherwise impede its effectiveness in promoting transparency and empowering citizens.

Section 24 of the Act outlines exemptions for certain intelligence and security organizations established by the Central or State Governments. These organizations, listed in the Second Schedule of the Act, are exempted from its provisions, except in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations. In such instances, information must be disclosed, subject to approval by the Central Information Commission for central agencies or the State Information Commission for state agencies. Despite these exemptions, the Act mandates that requested information related to corruption or human rights abuses must be provided within forty-five days of the request, bypassing the usual thirty-day response limit specified in section 7 of the Act.

The Central Government retains the authority to modify the Second Schedule by notification in the Official Gazette, either including new organizations or removing existing ones. Each notification issued under this provision must be presented before both Houses of Parliament for scrutiny and acknowledgment.

Similarly, State Governments have the prerogative to specify intelligence and security organizations exempt from the Act through notifications in their respective Official Gazettes. As with central agencies, information concerning corruption allegations or human rights violations involving these state organizations must be disclosed with approval from the State Information Commission and within the specified forty-five-day timeframe.

Section 25 of the Right to Information Act mandates a comprehensive monitoring and reporting framework to ensure effective implementation and accountability. Annually, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission prepares and submits a detailed report to the respective government, documenting the Act’s application and outcomes throughout the year. This report serves as a critical evaluation tool, highlighting key aspects such as the number of information requests received by each public authority, decisions where access to documents was denied under specific provisions, and the frequency of appeals filed and their resolutions.

Additionally, the report includes disclosures on any disciplinary actions taken against officials for mishandling RTI requests, and details of charges collected by public authorities for providing information. It also assesses the efforts made by public bodies to adhere to the Act’s principles and intentions, aiming to foster transparency and accountability.

Moreover, these annual reports are instrumental in recommending reforms to enhance the Act’s effectiveness. Recommendations cover diverse areas, including legislative amendments, administrative improvements, and the modernization of practices to better facilitate the public’s right to access information. The Central or State Governments subsequently present these reports to their respective legislative houses, ensuring parliamentary check and facilitating informed debates on further legislative measures or policy modifications.

Furthermore, if the Central or State Information Commission identifies discrepancies between a public authority’s practices and the Act’s mandate or underlying principles, it issues recommendations for corrective actions. These recommendations are crucial in promoting conformity and reinforcing the Act’s spirit across all levels of governance.

Section 26 outlines the responsibilities of the appropriate Government in facilitating public awareness and effective implementation of the Act. Firstly, it empowers the Government to develop educational programs aimed at enhancing public understanding, especially among disadvantaged communities, regarding their rights under the  Act. These programs are pivotal in empowering citizens to effectively exercise their right to access information held by public authorities.

Furthermore, the Government is tasked with encouraging public authorities to actively participate in and organize educational initiatives. This includes promoting the timely and accurate dissemination of information about their activities, fostering transparency and accountability in governance practices.

Moreover, Section 26 mandates the training of Central Public Information Officers and State Public Information Officers, equipping them with the necessary skills to handle information requests efficiently. The development and distribution of relevant training materials further support public authorities in complying with the Act’s provisions and enhancing accessibility for citizens seeking information.

In addition to educational efforts, the Government is required, within eighteen months of the Act’s commencement, to compile a comprehensive guide in the official language. This guide aims to provide easily understandable information essential for individuals wishing to exercise their rights under the Act. It covers various aspects, including the objectives of the Act, contact details of information officers, procedures for filing information requests, available assistance from information commissions, legal remedies, fee structures, and guidelines for voluntary disclosure of records.

Section 27 provides for the appropriate Government to enact rules through notification in the Official Gazette to facilitate the effective implementation of the Act. These rules are instrumental in providing operational guidelines across various facets of the RTI framework. Specifically, they address critical aspects such as determining the cost of mediums or print materials for disseminating information under Section 4(4), establishing fees payable for filing requests under Section 6(1), and processing fees under

Sections 7(1) and 7(5) for accessing information. Additionally, the rules outline the tenure, salaries, allowances, and conditions of service for Chief Information Commissioners, Information Commissioners, and their staff as detailed in Sections 13 and 16.

They also prescribe procedures for handling appeals to ensure consistency and efficiency in the adjudication process by the Central and State Information Commissions under Section 19(10). Furthermore, the rules encompass any other necessary matters essential for enforcing the RTI Act comprehensively.

Similar to Section 27, Section 28 grants authority to competent authorities to establish rules through notifications in the Official Gazette. These rules primarily focus on the cost of disseminating information, fees for information requests and appeals, and any additional matters that require regulation as per the Act’s requirements.

Section 29 outlines the parliamentary oversight mechanism for rules formulated by the Central Government. It mandates that all rules must be presented before both Houses of Parliament for scrutiny during their sessions. If Parliament suggests modifications or decides against the rule, the modified version will be enforced or the rule annulled, while maintaining the validity of actions taken under the original rule.

In case of challenges in implementing the Act, Section 30 provides the Central Government with the authority to issue orders through the Official Gazette to address such difficulties. These orders must align with the Act’s provisions and are subject to parliamentary review to ensure transparency and accountability in their application.

Section 31 repeals the earlier Freedom of Information Act, 2002, consolidating the legal framework under the RTI Act, 2005, as the definitive legislation governing public access to government information in India.

CONCLUSION

Chapter VI of the Right to Information Act encompasses crucial provisions ranging from defences to the Act’s overriding effect on conflicting laws, ensuring robust implementation and accountability. Schedule I outlines oaths for key officials, while Schedule II exempts certain intelligence organizations from disclosure, barring cases of corruption or rights abuses. The Act mandates monitoring and annual reporting by Information Commissions, fostering transparency. It empowers governments to educate the public, train information officers, and enact rules for effective implementation. Parliamentary oversight ensures legislative integrity, underscoring the Act’s role in promoting accessible governance and public empowerment in India.

[i] CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.