RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 1,015

This article is written by P. Rahini of Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology an intern under legal Vidhiya.

ABSTRACT:

In this article, we will examine citizens’ rights to request information from the government, which is managed by public authorities. The Right to Information Act was adopted by the Indian government in 2005. This was praised by the general people in large part because it would promote transparency regarding the activities of all the ministries and organisations that the Indian government oversees or funds. This rule encourages government-citizen communication, which is essential, especially in the largest democracy in the world.

KEYWORDS: Information, Democracy, Competent Authority, Public Authority, Central Information Commission.

INTRODUCTION:

In December 2004, the Right to Information Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha. With significant changes, it was approved by both chambers of Parliament in May 2005. On June 15, the President’s consent was received, and on June 21, the Act was published in the Gazette. By the middle of October 2005, the law will be put into effect. Except for Jammu and Kashmir, this law was passed by Parliament to give citizens the ability to exercise their fundamental right to access information held by public authorities nationwide. The RTI Act strives to reduce corruption, increase public authority transparency, and keep governments and their agents accountable to the general public. It includes a two-tier appeals process for handling grievances about the unreasonable withholding of information by public entities. This law will take precedence over the Official Secrets Act of 1923 and any other government regulations that limit access to information for the general public.

According to Section 18 of the RTI Act, when a case is being tried under the RTI Act, the CIC and the state’s equivalent have the same authority as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908″, including those in the cases of issuing summonses, receiving cases on affidavit, and requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office. According to the RTI Act of 2005, any institution of self-governance, body, or authority can be designated as a public authority if it was created following the Constitution, by legislation passed by the federal or state legislatures, or by notification from an “appropriate government.” The Election Commission, whose registration is required for a political party to be recognised as such, was the appropriate government according to CIC.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005:

It mandates prompt responses to citizens’ requests for information from the government and is controlled by public authority. This Act established a practical framework for citizens’ right to information, secured access to information under the control of public authorities, and provided for the establishment of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commission as well as matters related to transparency and accountability in the workings of all public authorities. Whereas the Indian Constitution established a democratic republic, democracy necessitates an informed populace and information openness that are essential to its operation as well as to prevent corruption and hold governments and their agents accountable to the governed.

Primary goal:

empower citizen
promote openness
accountability in government operations
combat corruption
and make sure our democracy serves the needs of the people.

OBJECTIVE OF RTI ACT:

An informed citizen is better able to maintain the essential watchfulness on the tools of governance and increase the accountability of the government to the governed. The Act represents a significant advancement in educating the populace about government operations. Everybody has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, according to international conventions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which was adopted on December 10th. The declaration also includes two more enabling clauses. The rights to peaceful assembly and association are granted by Article 20 The right to participate in the government of the country is granted by Article 21(a).

THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION:

The Central Information Commission is a statutory organisation that is created under Section 12 of the Right to Information Act, of 2005. Following this clause, the central government must establish the Central Information Commission without publishing a notice in the Official Gazette. The Central Information Commission is allowed to use the authority granted to it and carry out the obligations outlined in this law. In July 2019, the Right to Information Act was revised by the Indian Parliament, which also brought about certain modifications to the RTI Rules regarding the compensation, benefits, and terms of office for the Information Commissioner(s).

Due to the arbitrary character of the planned modifications and the Indian government’s desire to reduce the efficacy of the Information Commission, members of the opposition parties began to object and challenge them.

The Central Information Commission was established, according to Section 12 of the Right to Information Act of 2005. also, the following is this section’s crucial characteristics:

Section 12(1) This clause gives the public government the authority to establish the Central Information Commission.
Section 12(2) Following subsection (2) of Section 12, the Central Information Commission shall be composed of the Chief Information Commissioner and not further than ten fresh Chief Information Officers.
Section 12(3) According to subclause (3) of Section 12, the Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Officers shall be appointed by the President of the Republic of India on the recommendation of a commission composed of the Prime Minister of India, who shall serve as the commission’s speaker; the leader of the single- largest group opposing the Government of India in the Lok Sabha; and the Union Cabinet member.
Section 12(5) According to subclause (5) of Section 12, the Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Officers must be individuals who are recognised as elders in public life and who have expansive knowledge and experience in the fields of law, technology, social wisdom, operation, wisdom, mass media, journalism, governance, and administration.
Section 12(3) According to subclause (3) of Section 12, the Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Officers shall be appointed by the President of the Republic of India on the recommendation of a commission composed of the Prime Minister of India, who shall serve as the commission’s speaker; the leader of the single- largest group opposing the Government of India in the Lok Sabha; and the Union Cabinet member.
Section 12(5) According to subclause (5) of Section 12, the Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Officers must be individuals who are recognised as elders in public life and who have expansive knowledge and experience in the fields of law, technology, social wisdom, operation, wisdom, mass media, journalism, governance, and administration.

MISUSE OF RTI AND PIL:

Both the RTI and the PIL were first filed in 2005 and the 1980s, respectively. These two instruments were developed to represent and defend the rights of the populace. But as time went on, people began to abuse them for their gain, which could be obtained by pressuring the government through the use of RTI and for publicity through PILs.In a petition filed through a PIL, it was requested that the High Court issue a writ of mandamus under article 226 of the constitution ordering the respondents to issue orders requiring the conduct of mandatory medical exams for candidates running in Tamilnadu’s Legislative Assembly elections. This was filed to defend lakhs of voters from this PIL being dismissed because it was baseless, vexatious, and a publicity gimmick. Similar to this, it is occasionally observed that RTI petitions are submitted to obtain personal gains and exert influence over the authorities. It is a disgrace to the system that such helpful instruments be used in this manner. Such applications and PILs frequently flood the High Courts, squandering the time and effort of the courts and justices.

THE OBLIGATION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES:

The Act compels the public authority to suomoto make the information accessible in addition to requiring it to provide information when requested by a citizen. The most significant clause establishing an information regime is this one.

Every public authority is required by Section 4(1)(a) to keep all of its records properly catalogued and indexed in a way and format that supports the right to information under this Act, as well as to ensure that all records that are appropriate for computerization are, within a reasonable time and subject to resource availability, computerised and connected through a network across the nation on various systems to facilitate access to such records. According to Section 4(1)(b), the public authority must publish the following information within 120 days of the adoption of this Act:

the powers and responsibilities of its officers and staff; and
the process used for making decisions, including channels for oversight and accountability.

According to Section 4(2), the Public Authority has to work towards providing suo moto as much information to the public at regular intervals through a variety of communications channels, to reduce the public’s reliance on this Act for information. Every central and state-level public authority is required by Section 5 to appoint Central/State Public Information Officers at the Sub-District or Sub-Division levels to carry out various information access-related tasks.

PROCEDURE FOR INFORMATION ACCESS:

The Right to Information access process is incredibly user-friendly and easy to follow. Following Section 6(1) requests for information must be made in writing or electronically, and they may be submitted in Hindi, English, or the official language of the region. The responsible Public Information Officer is obligated to provide the application with all practical help to have an oral request reduced to writing if the applicant is unable to submit a request in writing.

The Right to Information Act of 2005 also works to prevent excessive delays in processing applications for information. Within thirty days of receiving the request, the public information officer must either supply the information requested or explain a reason for their refusal following the law. According to Section 7, information must be delivered within 48 hours if it pertains to a person’s life or freedom.

Refusal of the request shall be regarded to have occurred in the absence of the requested information being provided or a timely response. Information that is excluded from the scope of this Act is covered in Section 8. The Act’s Section 20 imposes a fine for such a silent or refused act.

PENALTIES:

Whether the CIC or the SIC, while handling an appeal filed by a person seeking information, conclude that the CPIO or the SPIO has refused to receive an application without a valid reason or has not provided information within the time frame required for that purpose, or has acted dishonestly by wilfully refusing to provide information, or has knowingly provided false, misleading, or incomplete information, or has destroyed information that was the subject of the request, or has interfered in any way with the information’s provision, it must levy a 350 rupee fine per day until the application is received or the information is provided. However, the total amount of such a punishment cannot be greater than 25,000 rupees (Section 20).

CONCLUSION:

One of a kind and ground-breaking is the Right to Information Act of 2005. It is distinct and groundbreaking because it is the first piece of law to result from a public campaign and uproar. Because of this, it is considered to be the most significant reform of public administration in India and the start of a new era in the history of democracy in our nation. It gives citizens the right to question, examine audit, review, and assess government acts and decisions to make sure that every action is consistent with the principle of public interest. This is expected to increase the available democratic space and give the average citizen far greater control over the corrupt and arbitrary exercise of State power.

Based on their research and common sense, they can determine the truth. As the fourth estate, the press has to hold the government responsible for disclosing information on topics of public interest, especially if doing so reveals wrongdoing or crimes committed by people in positions of power. A citizen’s right to vote has long been acknowledged by India’s Supreme Court. According to Article 19, having access to government information is a fundamental right, but Indians haven’t had a method to use it to demand transparency and fairness from a notoriously corrupt bureaucracy until the RTI Act was passed in 2005. Without factual, up-to-date, and primary information, it is impossible to evaluate public authorities and governments.

REFERENCE: