Right to Information Act

The Right to Information (RTI) Act grants each individual the freedom to seek and receive information and opinions about any problem via any media, regardless of boundaries. It went into effect when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified in 1948. The law for the Right to Information Act was updated in 2005. The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees everyone the right to free expression as well as the sharing of information and ideas. To put this theory into practice, a system was developed for Indian residents that allows for the free interchange of information and ideas. The Indian Parliament adopted the Right to Information Act, of 2005.

Historical Background of the RTI Act

• When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, it affirmed everyone's freedom to seek, receive, and share information and ideas via any media and across all borders.

• According to the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to free expression, as well as the opportunity to seek and share any type of information or views.

• According to Thomas Jefferson, "Information is the currency of democracy," and it is required for the establishment and evolution of a healthy civil society. The Right to Information Act of 2005 was passed by the Indian Parliament to create a realistic environment in which citizens may access information as a matter of right.

• A 1986 Supreme Court ruling in Kulwal v. Jaipur Municipal Corporation established that the right to information is inalienably linked to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution, as the former cannot be fully exercised without the latter.

• In 1994, the grassroots organisation Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan (MKSS) in rural Rajasthan began a Right to Information campaign, requesting information on development efforts. As a result of the growing momentum behind the campaign, the Rajasthani government approved a Right to Information law in 2000.

• With the assistance of the Press Council of India, the NCPRI and other organisations presented a draft RTI bill to the Union government in 1996.

• The bill draft was sent to a committee led by H.D. Shourie in 1997, and the committee issued a report. India's first state to enact a Right to Information Act was Tamil Nadu.

• The RTI Act proposals of a legislative committee were released to the public in 2001.

• The Freedom of Information Act was approved by Parliament in 2002 as a result of the Supreme Court's ultimatum to the government about access to information.

• The President signed the Act in 2003 without providing any notice.

• The RTI Bill was enacted by Parliament in 2004; it was directed to a parliamentary committee and only applied to the federal government.

• October 2005 saw the enactment of the RTI Bill by Parliament.

kinds of Requests for Information made using RTI

1. Any information that the government can provide to the parliament can be requested by the public from the relevant government agencies.

2. Certain material is not covered under RTI because it may have an impact on India's integrity and sovereignty.

3. RTI does not apply to information on cabinet talks, intellectual property rights (IPR), international relations, or internal security.

Objectives of the RTI Act

The following goals guided the implementation of the RTI Act:

• Permit the nation's residents to inquire about how the government is operating.

• Encourage accountability and openness in the functioning of the government.

• To better serve the people, eradicate corruption from the government.

• Provide residents with enough information on how the government operates.

Important Provisions under the RTI Act

The RTI Act of 2005 has a few significant sections, which are explained here. We'll go over each amenity in brief:

Other Features of the RTI Act

• The Act also establishes Information Commissioners at the federal and state levels. A number of government officials now have public information officers assigned to them. They have to provide information to anybody who requests it under the RTI Act.

• Time frame: After receiving an application, the public organisation usually gets back to the applicant with information within 30 days.

• The requested information must be provided within 48 hours if it pertains to someone's life or liberty.

• Thirty or forty-eight hours will be added to the application period if it is received through the Assistant Public Information Officer or by the wrong public authority.

What is Public Authority?

Any formed or constituted authority, body, or institution of self-government is referred to as a "public authority"—

• by the Constitution or other laws enacted by Parliament or state legislatures

• by a notification or order issued by the relevant government, which includes any body owned, controlled, or significantly financed

• by a non-governmental organisation that is significantly financed, either directly or indirectly

• by money supplied by the relevant government.

Limitations of the RTI Act

• By requesting extraneous information that is not in the public interest, the RTI can occasionally be exploited or manipulated to squander the valuable time of public authorities.

• RTI may be used by some as a means of gaining notoriety through the scandalization of trivial facts.

• to obtain media attention through an RTI.

• Sometimes the misuse of RTI results in the public officials being just coerced and harassed.

• RTI implementation in India is hampered by the size of our nation, ignorance, and illiteracy.

• RTI is occasionally abused as a means of resolving complaints, despite this being the secondary goal of the RTI Act of 2005.

Criticism of the RTI Act

• The act's primary drawback is the bureaucracy's bad record-keeping, which leads to lost files.

• The information commissioners are not adequately staffed.

• The Whistle Blower's Act and other supplemental legislation are weaker, which lessens the impact of the RTI law.

• The act's intended proactive publication of information in the public domain by the government has the unintended consequence of increasing the volume of RTI applications.

• There have been instances of pointless RTI requests and blackmailing government officials with the information they got.

Obstacles related to the RTI Act

• Information of many kinds that may be used to circumvent the law and enrage government officials is sought for, even if it is not of public interest. For example, requesting urgent and comprehensive information.

• RTI is widely used to put government personnel under duress or harassment.

• The RTI cannot be used as most individuals are illiterate and ignorant of their legal rights.

• Even though the purpose of RTI is not to establish a grievance procedure, letters from Information Commissions frequently encourage government entities to address concerns.

Recent Amendments related to the RTI Act

• Political parties are no longer included in the definition of public authorities and, therefore, are no longer covered by the RTI Act, according to the RTI Amendment Bill of 2013.

• More attacks on the lives of whistleblowers may result from the 2017 draft clause that calls for the lawsuit to be closed in the event that 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 reduce CIC's independence and autonomy.

• The Act suggests substituting the government-mandated amount for the predetermined five-year tenure.

Conclusion

The Right to Information legislation was designed to achieve social justice, transparency, and a responsible government; nevertheless, several obstacles resulting from systemic failings have prevented the legislation from fulfilling its full potential. The public would lose trust in this "sunshine Act" if the misuse of the RTI Act is not effectively addressed, as noted by the Delhi High Court. It is common knowledge that improving governance requires more than just access to information. To bring about accountability in government, a great deal more work has to be done. This includes safeguarding whistleblowers, decentralising power, and combining authority with responsibility at all levels.