LAW WE SHOULD KNOW

Submitted by-

Ayush Jain

B.Tech (EEE)

Scope of Right to Information Act

(Source-Wikipedia)The following Governments, Organizations and bodies are covered under RTI and are subject to it.

 Central, State and Local Governments. All bodies owned, controlled or substantially

financed by these governments. NGOs (Non Government Organizations)

substantially financed directly or indirectly by appropriate government funds.

Executive, Judiciary and legislature wings. The Act applies to all States and Union Territories

of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir - which is covered under a State-level RTI law.

Information that can be seek under RTI-

The Act specifies that citizens have a right to: Request any information (as defined). Obtain copies of documents. Inspect documents, works and records. Take certified samples of materials of work. Obtain information about material held in any

form (Electronic Media included)  such as Records Documents Memos Opinions & Advices Press Releases Circulars, orders & logbooks Contracts Reports, paper samples & models

PARTIAL DISCLOSURE under RTI-

The act also enforces non-disclosure of some Information which may be vital to the Country’s security and other related Information. Thus, those part(s) of the requested records which are not exempt from disclosure and which can reasonably be severed from parts containing exempt information are to be provided to the Requisite under RTI.

Ambit of RTI only for Public Authority

(Source-Wikipedia)The following information is exempted from disclosure. Except these informations, public authority has right to ask for any kind of information.Information which would prejudicially-  (Section-8)

Affect the sovereignty and integrity of India Affect the security, strategic, scientific or

economic interests of the State.  Affect the relation with foreign State.  Leads to incitement of an offence.  Information forbidden to be published by any

court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.

 Cause a breach of privilege of parliament or the state legislature.

 Affect commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.

  Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, competent authority if satisfied that the larger public interest can allow the disclosure of such information;

 Information received in confidence from foreign government.

RTI-a boon or bane

Since the imperial age human beings all around the world have increasingly enjoyed certain basic rights, but as democracies developed a need for a legislation to bring more transparency into the democratic process was realized.

I firmly believe the right to information is one of the most significant developments in the process of democracy that has taken place in the recent times. The records are not for the government to sit over or turn them into files which gather dust in government record rooms. They in fact are proof of the working of our governing officials. The right to information not only brings about transparency in the official proceedings but also acts as a suitable check for corruption, bringing about fairness in the system. Any citizen in a modern functioning democracy has the right and duty of being aware about the government procedures, and brings to notice inequities wherever found. As has been shown by unearthing of various corruption cases in a short span of time, the act has been effective in India. This would go a long way in acting  as an disinfectant for corruption in a country like ours which has been rated by transparency international as one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

But on the flip side one may argue about the misuse of the act by unscrupulous elements. Critics have also argued compromising of information regarding national security and other classified information with the government. Also, there is fear of increasing workload on the already overworked bureaucracy of India. The judiciary sometimes is also averse to the act, stating a valid argument that it can falsely malign the name of any working or retired judge and

on the whole too will dilute the respect for our highly esteemed judiciary.

All of the above are fair arguments but I think they have been suitably laid to rest firstly by keeping national security documents and the Prime Minister’s Office out of the acts ambit. The argument of increasing workload on the officials is hardly valid in modern times with so many information technology solutions at our disposal. The argument is further defeated by continuing modernization and computerization of official records by the government. On the whole too if we have to increase the workforce for the act to function, it is too small a price to pay to bring transparency into the system. On the issue of misuse of the act in general and against judiciary in particular, a further legislation for punitive action against such elements can decrease the misuse up to a large extent.

In conclusion although prone to misuse in some situations the right to information is a giant leap forward in the process of evolution of an ideal democracy. Thus, it should be further enhanced bringing in even more avenues into its ambit, like the controversial cabinet meeting notes. Repealing or weakening the act would not only be retrograde but will seriously jeopardize the future of democracy in this country.