INTRODUCTION

The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a legislative mechanism to ensure answerability amongst the administrative officials for their actions or inactions. It seeks to provide the power to the common man to inquire about governmental policies, schemes, and actions or omissions to act on the part of the administration or quasi-administrative entities.

Even though the Right to Information Act, 2005, went into effect on October 12, 2005, a few of its provisions—including Sections 4(1), 5(1), 12, 13, 15, 16, 24, 27, and 28—went into effect right away, on June 15, 2005. On October 12, 2005, the remaining clauses went into effect.

Eight states and one Union Territory had information laws in place when the Act was passed. Thus, in addition to Delhi, the following states have laws pertaining to the right to information: Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Assam, Goa, and Jammu & Kashmir. Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. Since the Right to Information Act of 2005 was passed, state and municipal governments as well as public authorities of the federal government are covered by the Act. This implies that whether or not a state information legislation is in effect, residents of every state in India have access to information from the offices of the Central and State Governments.i]

One of the main characteristics of the Act is that it is only accessible to Indian nationals; non-citizens, such as foreign visitors, students, refugees, etc., cannot make use of it. Directors of firms and corporations may request information from public agencies, notwithstanding the Act prohibiting companies and corporations from doing so. The citizens do not need to pay any fees in order to access information if they are classified as ‘Below the Poverty Line’ (BPL) by the relevant authorities. Public authorities created, owned, or mostly funded by the federal government, state governments, and the administration of the union territories, including panchayats, municipalities, and other local bodies, are responsible for providing information. The government department that possesses the information can also contact the private sector, even if it is not mentioned, for information.[ii]

The Supreme Court, in one of its first judgments recognizing the fundamental right to information of the citizens of India as per Article 19(1)(a), has held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain that the public has a right to know every public act done in a public way by their public functionaries. [iii] However, it has also been acknowledged in Bhagat Singh v. CIC that the Right to Information is not an absolute right. [iv]

PREAMBLE

The Right to Information Act’s Preamble provides justification for the goal and intention of the act. It suggests that the public may now be entitled to access information that is governed by the government. In order to achieve the objectives of good governance, openness and accountability must be fostered, and this requires having access to information.

The purpose of the Act is fourfold: (i) (i) to promote and ensure transparency of information for accountability; (ii) to build an informed citizenry; (iii) to ensure that the revelation of information does not conflict with other public interests; and (iv) to harmonize conflicting interests in line with the ideals of democracy.

• Transparency and Accountability—The Act fosters a culture of transparency and accountability by granting access to information on all activities affecting the public. It enables the monitoring, oversight, investigation, scrutiny, and review of government actions through accessible information.
• Informed Citizenry—The Act aims to build an informed citizenry by ensuring access to crucial information. It empowers citizens to make informed decisions and actively participate in governance processes. Through this Act, transparency is promoted across all levels of government, enhancing public trust and accountability. Citizens are equipped with the tools to scrutinize government actions, contribute meaningfully to public discourse, and hold authorities accountable for their decisions and policies.
• Non–Conflict of Revelation of Information—The Act ensures that the disclosure of information does not undermine other public interests. It strikes a balance between transparency and protecting sensitive information that could harm national security, individual privacy, or commercial confidentiality. By incorporating safeguards and exemptions, the Act prevents misuse of information while upholding the paramount importance of public welfare.
• Ideals of Democracy—The Act strives to reconcile conflicting interests in accordance with democratic principles by balancing the right to access information with other legitimate interests such as national security, privacy rights, and business confidentiality. By establishing procedures for handling sensitive information and exemptions where necessary, the Act ensures that transparency coexists with the protection of essential societal values.

The Preamble underscores that the right to information is not absolute, and some types of information are exempt from disclosure in the broader public interest. Therefore, assessing the sensitivity of information depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each situation.

CHAPTER I

Section 2 of the Act provides for the definitions. As per Clause (a), ‘appropriate government’ refers to where a public authority is a department of the central and state governments and has the power to make rules for their respective institutions and establishments to carry out the functions of the Act. Clause (b) defines the ‘Central Information Commission,’ while clause (c) defines the ‘Central Public Information Officer.’.

The public authority is led by the competent authority, who is defined under Clause (e) and who also represents him. The Speaker of the House serves in the Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha; the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or Vidhan Parishad; the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, respectively; the President and the Governor serve as representatives of the Central and State governments, and the Administrator serves as the representative of Union Territories established under the Indian Constitution. The Act gives the relevant authorities the ability to create regulations to ensure the Act is implemented correctly.

A cantonment board was ruled incompetent to set regulations in Amarchand Bawaria v. Union of India because it did not fall within Section 2(e)’s definition of ‘competent authority.’. [v]

Clause (f) defines ‘information’ as any material in any form, including records, papers, memoranda, electronic reports, views, recommendations, press releases, circulars, orders, and logbooks, referred to as “information.” Contracts, documents, samples, reports, papers, data material stored in any electronic format, models, samples, reports, and anything on private entities that a public authority may access under any other currently in effect law.

As per Section 2(j), ‘Right to information’ refers to the right to information held by or controlled by any public authority and made available under this Act. This includes the following: (i) (i) inspecting work, documents, and records; (ii) making notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes, or in any other electronic mode; or (v) through printouts when such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.

[i]N.K. Acharya, Commentary on The Right to Information Act, 2005 (8th ed. 2010).

[ii] Shahla Tabassum & T. Sadashivam, Right to Information Act in India: An Overview, 6 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2012).

[iii] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428.

[iv] Bhagat Singh v. CIC, WP (c) No. 3114/2007.

[v] Amarchand Bawaria v. Union of India, AIR 2009 (NOC) 285 (Ker.)