Right To Information Assignment, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download Right To Information Assignment and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity!

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

ASSIGNMENT

ON

“RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005”

SUBMITTED TO

Ms.__________

_______LAW SCHOOL

_______UNIVERSITY

________, _______

SUBMITTED BY

NAME

Roll No

Course (batch year)

SECTION

Contents

Particulars Page

1. Introduction …………………………………………………………...…….............. 1
2. Sources of the Right to Information ...……………..………………………………... 2
3. Features of the Right to Information Act …….……………………………………... 3
4. Restrictions Imposed by the Act ………………...…………………………………... 4
5. Loopholes in the Right to Information ...…………….……….................................... 6
6. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………... 7

SOURCES OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION

First, is the constitutional basis derived from Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian constitution which states that “All citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression”. India’s Supreme Court from the case of Bennett and Co vs. the Union of India, 1973, read it as an integral element of the purpose of Article 19. As the majority opinion then put it,” freedom of speech and expression includes within its compass the right of all citizens to read and be informed”. In state of U.P Vs. Raj Narain,1975 AIR 865 , 1975 SCR (3) 333, the apex court of the country stated, “In a government of responsibility like ours where the agents of the public must be responsible for the conduct there can be but a few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearings.” The second basis for RTI is democratic. India is a democracy where the government is of the people, by the people for the people. The public servants derive power from the people as they are either elected by the people directly or indirectly; or nominated by the people directly or by representatives of the people. Therefore they exercise power on behalf of the people. Thirdly, the Constitution guarantees, under Article 19(1) (a), to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression. In order to exercise the freedom of speech and expression effectively, you need an informed public opinion. The right to knowledge includes the right to information. The right to information thus flows out of freedom of speech and expression. The right to information Act, 2005 is not the repository of the Right to Information. Its repository is the constitutional right to free speech and expression. The Right to Information Act is merely an instrument that lays down the statutory procedure in the exercise of this right. It is, therefore, necessary that all exceptions and denials or exemptions and denials of the right to information must necessarily conform to restrictions that bear a nexus to those mentioned in Article 19 (2) and to none others. The fourth basis for RTI is logical. The Citizens pay taxes. They have a right to know how their money is being spent, by whom, when and where their money is being spent.

FEATURES OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

This act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Central Information Commission and State Information Commission have been set up. These are the supreme appellate authorities to exercise the power conferred on and to perform the functions assigned to under this Act. In all administrative units of the Government there shall be Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be for providing information to the person requesting under the Act. A person who desires to obtain information shall make a request in writing or through electronic means of communication to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer of the concerned public authority along with prescribed fees. The Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer shall within 30 days of the receipt of such request either provide information to the person or reject the request. If he fails to give any decision it will be presumed that he has refused the request. A person who is not satisfied with the information provided by the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer as the case may be or a person who is denied to have any information or whose request is rejected without assigning any reason may prefer an appeal to the officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. A second appeal may be preferred to the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission established under the Act. Decision of the Commission is final and binding. Thus a hierarchy has been set up within the public authority and the power of court has been curtailed. Now the court is not entitled to entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question in court. Thus jurisdiction of the court cannot be invoked because there exists a statutory bar under Section 23 of the Act. Now Right to Information has become a statutory right and any person aggrieved with the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer has statutory remedy under the Act. He does not have to knock the door of the court.

the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information; Section 9 of the Act says that a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access to information involves an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the state. Section 24 lays down that the Act has no application to certain organizations. These are the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act, as organizations established by the Central Government. The Act also cannot be applied for certain intelligence and security organizations established by the State Government as that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify. Information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and violation of human rights shall not be excluded under this Section. Only one exception is that if the information in respect of violation of human rights is there, after obtaining the approval of Central Information Commission such information shall be provided. Some intelligence and security organizations established by the Central Government not under the purview of the Act are:

1. Intelligence Bureau
2. Research and Analysis wing of the Cabinet Secretariat
3. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
4. Central Economic Intelligence Bureau
5. Directorate of Enforcement
6. Narcotics Control Bureau
7. Border Security Force
8. Central Reserve Police Force
9. Indo-Tibetan Border Police
10. Central Industrial Security Force
11. National Security Guards
12. Special Protection Group
13. Defence Research and Development Organisation
14. Border Road Development Board
15. Financial Intelligence Unit, India

LOOPHOLES IN THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION

There are certain loopholes in the Right to Information. These loopholes have been identified within this short period of time of application. Firstly, the official mind set does not seem in favour of sharing any information. As per S.P. Sathe, the main obstacle is the attitude of the bureaucracy which is accustomed to working in closed corridors. While most public departments may not say “no” directly to any information sought, but there are enough grounds in the Act on the basis of which information won’t be given or would be delayed, viz. pretext of lack of manpower to compile the data or finalize the accounts, or safety of the document, etc. The researcher feels that this discretion that has been conferred upon PIOs may be used against the purposes of the Act, unless efforts are made to make the official mind set conducive to sharing information. Secondly, The Act stipulates a penalty in case of information is denied without adequate reasons, but it is not harsh enough. There may be cases where administrative accountability can be dispensed by deliberate act of government in lieu of paying this meagre amount. Rather denial to provide information should be made a much more serious offence with a heavier penalty, and if the denial is malafide then it should be made a ground for dismissal as well. Thirdly, express bar on Jurisdiction of court gives a freehand to all administrative decisions under the Act. Although an appeal may lie to the Courts for violation of fundamental rights, there must be a provision for appealing to the court, in line with a similar provision that exists in the British Freedom of Information Act. Fourthly, the Act does not help people other than citizens. At least NRI’s and concerned foreigners should be allowed to access to documents required so as to set a good international trend. Moreover, courts have interpreted Right to Information in preview of Article 21 of the Constitution which is guaranteed to each and every person irrespective of citizenship. Fifthly, under Section 7(9) information may be declined if it disproportionately diverts the resources of the public authority. This provision gives a lot of discretion to the public authorities and safeguards must be provided to ensure that it is not misused. There also should be a provision to identify genuine requests so that the public authorities are not burdened unnecessarily.