INTRODUCTION

A legislative tool to guarantee administrative authorities’ accountability for their deeds or inactions, the Right to Information Act, 2005, aims to give the average person the ability to inquire about government plans, policies, and the actions or inactions of the administration or quasi-administrative bodies.

Chapter II of the Act deals with the right to information and obligations of public authorities, extending from Section 3 to 11. According to the Right to Information Act of 2005, public authorities are the information repository. Public bodies are required by the Act to make it easier for citizens to access the data that they are in charge of. The head of the authority is actually responsible for the authority’s commitments.

CHAPTER II

Chapter II of the RTI Act relates to the right to information and obligations of public authorities. Everyone has the right to access information kept by public authorities, according to Section 3. It is required of the public authorities to set up a system that would allow them to reveal certain information. Public authorities are subject to certain requirements under the RTI Act, including those outlined in Section 4.

Section 4(1)(a) outlines the maintenance of all records in computerized form. As required by this Act, all public authorities must keep their records properly categorized, catalogued, and formatted to support the public’s right to access information. Within a reasonable timeframe, the public authority will make sure that all records are computerized. The availability of resources, however, affects this commitment. To make it easier to access these documents, computerized resources across the nation will be linked via a network on several platforms.

Section 4(1)(b) provides for the suo motu disclosure of information. Within 120 days of enactment, every public authority is required to publish extensive information under the Act, with annual updates. This includes organizational structures, decision-making procedures, regulatory norms, document availability, public consultation mechanisms, board details and accessibility, officer directories with remuneration, budget allocations, subsidy program execution and beneficiary details, permits and concessions information, electronic data accessibility, public information facility details, public information officers’ particulars, policy formulation facts, and reasons for administrative decisions affecting the public, as per Sections 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d), respectively. These measures aim to promote transparency and accountability by ensuring citizens have access to crucial information held by public bodies.

Sections 4(2) to 4(4) provide for the dissemination of information, as per which shall take action to ensure that the public has as little need to utilize this Act to receive information as feasible by providing as much information as practicable suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various methods of communication, including the internet.

Nonetheless, the most efficient means of communication in that locality, the cost-effectiveness of the content, and the local language must all be taken into account when disseminating it under Section 4(1). In addition, the data must be easily obtainable, free of charge, or available at a predetermined fee for the medium or print price.

The term “disseminated” in this context refers to bringing information to the public’s knowledge or communication via notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, and even public authority inspections.

The designation of assistant public information officers and public information officers is covered in Section 5. Within 100 days of the Act’s passage, all public authorities are required to designate Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) and State Public Information Officers (SPIOs). These officers, who are assigned to every administrative unit, help distribute the information that is sought in accordance with the Act. Furthermore, sub-divisional Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) are assigned to accept and convey appeals and information requests to higher authorities. In addition to managing requests and offering assistance, CPIOs and SPIOs have the authority to recruit more police as needed. The requirements of the Act hold helping officers accountable, guaranteeing citizens efficient access to information and openness.

The process for submitting an information request is outlined in Section 6. A written or electronic request in Hindi, English, or the official language of the area must be sent, together with the required payment. The request should be made in writing, with specifics about the information sought, to the Assistant Public Information Officer or the Central or State Public Information Officer of the appropriate body. The officer must help reduce an oral request to writing if it cannot be submitted in writing. Applicants are not required to submit any more personal information or justifications than what is required for communication. In the event that another authority holds the information, the request may be swiftly transferred and the applicant notified.

Section 7 of the Act mandates that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer expeditiously process requests and endeavor to furnish the requested information within thirty days, with the exception of situations pertaining to an individual’s life or liberty, in which case information must be provided within forty-eight hours. It is declared a refusal if these deadlines are not met. The officer shall advise the requester of any additional fees necessary for the provision of the information, along with the right to appeal and a breakdown of the pricing structure. Assistance must be given to those with sensory impairments in order to enable access.

Prescribed fees apply to accessing information in printed or electronic versions; those living in poverty are exempt. The information must be given without charge if the public authority misses the deadlines. The evaluation of representations made by third parties under Section 11 must be made before deciding on disclosure. In the event of a denial, the officer is required to provide the reasons behind the decision, the time frame for filing an appeal, and the specifics of the appellate body. In most cases, information should be sent in the format that was requested, unless doing so would unduly burden the authority or jeopardize the security of the records.

Certain types of information, such as those that could jeopardize national interests, including security, foreign policy, or sovereignty, are protected from disclosure to individuals under Section 8. Additionally, it protects material that violates court orders or compromises parliamentary privilege. Unless the public interest prevails, commercial secrets, fiduciary connections, and private information from foreign governments are safeguarded. Information that jeopardizes one’s safety, hinders the work of law enforcement, or is connected to cabinet decisions prior to their completion is also excluded. However, if the public interest outweighs any potential risks, disclosures might be permitted. Generally speaking, unless the central government specifies otherwise, information more than twenty years old must be supplied upon request. Unless it serves a greater public interest, personal information unrelated to public activity may be exempt.

In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed whether students have the right under the RTI Act 2005 to inspect and obtain certified copies of their evaluated answer books from public examinations. CBSE argued that this fell under a fiduciary relationship, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.i]

In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors., the issue was whether information about a public servant’s property, assets, liabilities, and career could be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as personal information.[ii]

Section 9 provides for the grounds for rejection to access in certain cases. A CPIO or SPIO may reject requests involving copyright infringement, adhering to Section 8’s provisions on information access. Section 10 deals with severability and provides that the CPIO or SPIO is required to give access to the non-exempt portions that can be divided if an information request is partially denied because of exemptions. The applicant must be informed of the partial disclosure, the decision’s reasoning, and the specifics of the fees. In addition, the notice gives the right to study the decision, the procedures for filing an appeal, and the senior officer’s or Information Commission’s contact information for more options.

Regarding RTI Act sections 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j), and 10(1), the court determined in D.P. Maheshwari v. CBI that the exemption under 8(1)(j) does not apply when requesting information on one’s own case. Information about the appellant may be disclosed under section 10(1)’s severability principle, even if the report includes other people’s personal information. The court acknowledged that complete disclosure might impede the investigation (8(1)(g)), but concealing facts pertaining to the appellant would not impede the administration of justice because he was not the accused. Accordingly, under section 10(1) of the RTI Act, the appellant was entitled to obtain a portion of the report that cleared him.[iii]

In accordance with Section 11, a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or State Public Information Officer (SPIO) shall give notice to the third party of their intention to divulge information within five days of the request being received. The third party is notified of the planned disclosure and given the opportunity to object verbally or in writing. Within forty days of receiving the initial request, this response is taken into consideration before a decision is made regarding disclosure, given that the third party has been given a chance to reply. If there is a greater public interest in disclosure than there is in potentially harming the interests of a third party, disclosure may proceed notwithstanding objections, with the exception of situations involving legally protected trade secrets. Subsequently, the third party is informed of the judgment and their entitlement to appeal under Section 19 of the Act, guaranteeing impartiality and openness in the disclosure procedure for third-party data.

CONCLUSION

The Act promotes transparency by providing citizens with access to government information and outlining the responsibilities of public authorities. While Section 8 protects individual privacy and national interests, Sections 4 and 7 emphasize the need for proactive disclosure and prompt response. The harmony between protection and disclosure is further refined by judicial interpretations, as demonstrated by precedent-setting decisions.

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

[ii] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212.

[iii] D. P. Maheshwari, IAS Retd. v. Central Bureau of Information, CIC/WB/A/2008/0269 & 270.