CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO KNOW

Admin

1 year ago

Spread the love

This article is written by Janvi Goyal, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

India is the greatest democratic nation in the world. Access to information kept by government organizations is a necessary condition for a democratic society. Democracy can be described as “government by, for, and by the people.” Under this model of governance, the nation’s representatives are chosen by the people. However, until people had the right to know under Article 21[1], which assures them the right to life and personal liberty, the general population had no right to know about government actions and expeditors, but only in a narrow sense. It does not impose any legal responsibilities on public bodies or set penalties for withholding information from the public as a whole. A true democracy must ensure that people in general can access information at all degrees without facing prejudicial opinions. Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution guarantees us the right to free speech and expression. The Right to Information Act of 2005 was enacted in order to satisfy the prerequisites of the right to know and the right to seek information from public bodies. We can obtain our rights and maintain good governance by making use of this right.

KEYWORDS

Information, democracy, rights, government, people, know

INTRODUCTION

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution ensures the right to free speech and expression to all citizens of India. Since a person cannot form a rational perspective in the absence of sufficient understanding, this right extends to the receipt of information as well as its communication. As a result, the fundamental right safeguarded by Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to know and seek information. Furthermore, the Honorable Supreme Court has determined that Article 19(1)(a) offers citizens the fundamental right to know and be informed about topics of public vitality.

A democracy’s foundation is the citizen’s right to request information about the government’s many actions and policies. The public has to have access to information on the functioning of government in order to exercise this right and hold the government responsible for its actions. What RTI does is this. By keeping the public up to date on government matters, it ensures that citizens are engaged in democracy at all times rather than just once when voting. RTI is an index used to evaluate a nation’s progress and evolution.

OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to provide a concise overview of the right to know, including its aspects, goals, and historical context. Additionally, it explains the significance of the RTI Act so that comprehensive information about it may be found in one location. It also details the obstacles the RTI Act has experienced and the most recent changes that have been suggested.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In 1948, the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provided everyone the freedom to seek and receive understanding and thoughts through any media and across all barriers, gave rise to the right to information.

According to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of expression as well as the ability to discover and communicate any kind of information or ideas.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Information is the currency of democracy,” and it is essential to accelerating the development and establishment of an effective civil society. However, the Right to Information Act, 2005 was passed by the Indian Parliament in order to lay out an appropriate structure that would allow citizens to access information as a matter of right.

The genesis of the Right to Information (RTI) law dates way back in 1986, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Mr. Koolwal v. Jaipur Municipal Corporation case[2] that the freedom of speech and expression ensured by Article 19 of the Constitution automatically implies the right to information, since citizens cannot fully utilize their right to free speech and expression in without the availability of information.

RIGHT TO KNOW

The phrase “right to life and a person’s liberty” is included in Article 21 and integrates a wide range of rights and properties. Some of them have two sources at once due to the fact they are additionally cited in article 19. The Supreme Court analyzes article 21’s right to know in R.P. Ltd. v. Indian Express News Paper[3]. The Supreme Court ruled that the starting point for participatory democracy is the right to know. The concept of “liberty” needs to take on greater significance in light of translational development, which is the shrinking of distance between across globe communities and their joining together for cooperation in a variety of fields and efforts toward global preparation for human rights. The Supreme Court takes into account the lack of physical control. It is sufficient in scope to include every facet of the right to hold a specific view as well as the freedom to defend and advance that belief. Everyone has the right to know, which includes the right to receive information, according to Article 21. Compared to article 19(1)(a), article 21’s scope and broadness are far greater.

PROMOTING AWARENESS OF PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO KNOW

The President of India granted his assent to the Right to Information Act, 2005 on May 16, 2005, and it was published in The Gazette of India on June 21, 2005. With the sole exception of the State of J&K, it is effective to the entire nation as of June 15, 2005. The Administrative Reforms Cell of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the Government of West Bengal drafted the West Bengal Right to Information Rules, 2006, which were published in the Kolkata Gazette Extraordinary on March 29, 2006.

The RTI Act, 2005 is the result of several different responses, including those from the central government, to the people’s demand for the right to know, which first came to light in 1990 in the quiet village of Devdungri in the Rajasmand district of central Rajasthan. The demand was started by Mazdur Kisan Shakti Sangathan. Early in 1997, the Indian Supreme Court and High Courts in several States made significant decisions stating that the right to information is safeguarded by Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Indian Constitution[4], which successively guarantee the freedom of speech and expression and the right to life and liberty. If a citizen’s right to information is violated, their right to life falls significantly less meaningful. This has been comprehensively acknowledged in the preamble to the Act as an obligation in order to commit to the development of an informed citizenry, combating corruption, and to improve accountability and transparency in the everyday operations of all public entities.

OBJECTIVES OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

To put together a workable structure that will allow citizens to obtain information under the control of public authorities.
to encourage transparency and fiscal responsibility in the way that governments and the agencies they regulate function.
to provide provisions for the inauguration of national and state information commissions in order to carry out the duties and use the authority assigned by the Act.
to create aware citizens.
to keep corruption in check.
In order to reconcile all of these competing goals while sustaining the superiority of the democratic ideal, it is necessary to clarify the exemptions to information disclosure when doing so is likely to conflict with other public interests.

IMPORTANCE OF RTI ACT, 2005[5]

A new bureaucracy was not established under the RTI Act, 2005 to execute out the legislation. Rather, it necessitated and questioned personnel in every office to shift from an accountability and mindset of secrecy to one of sharing and transparency.
It purposefully and deliberately established the Information Commission as the nation’s highest authority, entrusted with the authority to direct any office to release information in accordance with the Act’s terms. It also gave the Commission a power to penalize any official who violated the directive.
The strengthening of participatory democracy and the emergence of human-centered governance have been viewed to be contingent on the right to knowledge.
Information access can allow those who are disadvantaged or excluded in society to request and obtain information on public policies and actions, thereby contributing to their well-being. By exposing wrongdoings at high places, such the Commonwealth Games administration and the distribution of 2G spectrum and coal blocks, it indicated early promise.
The right to information [6]provides the public with the ability to review official documents, giving them a crucial tool to educate themselves on the workings and methods of government, so increasing government accountability.
boosts public authority decision-making by getting rid of excessive secrecy.

FEATURES OF RTI ACT, 2005

Section 1(2): With the notable exception of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it covers the entirety of India.

Section 2(f): “Information” refers to any material in any format, such as records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material maintained in any electronic format, and information about any private entity that a public authority may access in compliance with any other currently enacted law.
Section 2(j): “Right to Information” refers to the following: Inspection of work, documents, and records; Access to information upheld by or under the control of any public authority pursuant to this Act;
extracting certified copies, notes, or excerpts from papers or records; obtaining proven material samples;
obtaining data that is stored in a computer or other device and may be obtained from printouts, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes, or any other electronic means.
Every public authority is required by Section 4 of the RTI Act to disclose information on their own initiative. The uncovered facts haven’t been entirely pleasurable though.
Exemptions from the RTI Act’s [7]obligation to provide information are mentioned in Section 8 (1).
If a greater public interest is served, Section 8(2) authorizes the release of material exempted by the Official Secrets Act of 1923.
The Act also allows for the Central and State level candidacy of Information Commissioners. A few of its officers have been named Public Information Officers by the authorities. When someone requests information under the RTI Act, [8]they have a responsibility to provide it.
Time frame: Normally, a public authority will hand over information to an applicant within 30 days after receiving their application.
Information that is requested that pertains to the life of another or freedom must be provided within 48 hours.
If the application is submitted to the improper public authority or via the Assistant Public Information Officer, there will be an additional five days added to the thirty or forty-eight-hour period, regardless of is applicable.

CHALLENGES

Information of a variety that is not in the public interest is sought after sometimes used to abuse the legal system and coerce public servants. For instance: Making an ardent and extensive information request.
to get recognition by filing an RTI RTIs are submitted as a means of vengeance in order to intimidate or coerce public authorities.
The RTI cannot be used due to the majority of the population in the whole country being illiterate and unaware.
Even though the goal of RTI is not to setup a grievance redressal system, Information Commission letters frequently motivate public bodies to address complaints.

LATEST MODIFICATIONS

Political parties are no longer incorporated into the definition of public authorities and, therefore, have been excluded by the RTI Act, according to the RTI Amendment Bill of 2013[9].
More attacks on the lives of whistleblowers may result from the 2017 draft provision that calls for the legal action to be closed in cases where the applicant passes away.
The purpose of the proposed RTI Amendment Act 2018 is to grant the Central government the authority to set the salaries and terms of office for state and central information commissioners, who are legally protected under the RTI Act. The change will diminish CIC[10]‘s independence and autonomy.
The Act recommends substituting the government-mandated sum for the preordained five-year tenure.

CONCLUSION

The Right to Information Act was designed with the intention of accomplishing social justice, transparency, and a responsible government; however, a number of impediments resulting from systemic failings have prevented the act from fulfilling its true potential.

The public will lose credibility in this “sunshine Act” if the misuse of the RTI Act is not correctly addressed, as noted by the Delhi High Court.

It is widely accepted that improving governance requires more than just equitable access to information. To bring about accountability in government, plenty of additional work needs to be done. This includes shielding whistleblowers, outsourcing power, and blending authority with accountability at all levels.

As part of his right to know, every citizen enjoys the right to the dissemination and consumption of information. Along with upholding citizens’ rights, the state also has a duty to create the conditions necessary for everyone to be able to exercise their rights in a meaningful and beneficial way. The most basic and unalienable right of a democratic society is the right to know. This right involves the ability to gather and share information. The ability to express a person is essential for upholding one’s conscience and attaining joy in life, and this necessitates the right to information. People can contribute on moral and community problems thanks to it.

It is the best approach for tracking the most accurate model of anything since it allows a wide range of ideas to be shared. Only reasonable constraints allowed by law, as stated in our constitution’s article 19(2), [11]may restrict an individual’s right. Considering all of these limitations, legislation preserving the right to knowledge is an essential progression in ensuring that the development of the country process is participatory. The community at large, specifically non-governmental organizations and the press, must actively participate in the implementation of the law in order for it to be sincerely effective. They must also simplify and inform citizens of the opportunities provided by the new legislation.[12]

REFERENCES

[1] Constitution of India, 1949

[2] L.K Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. AIR 1988 RAJ 2, 1987(1) WLN134, On 19 September 1986

[3] 1988(4) SCC 592

[4] Constitution of India, 1949

[5] Right to Information act, 2005

[6] Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, 13 November, 2019

[7] Vijay Prakash vs Union of India WP(C) 803/2009

[8] Right to Information Act, 2005

[9] All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs Vikrant Bhuria, LPA No. 487/2011

[10] Chief Information Commissioner

[11] Constitution of India, 1949

[12] Sudhirranjan Senapati Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Union of India and Ors. WP(C) 7048/2011

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin

PDF 📄