The RTI is now the ‘Right to Deny Information’

Context: Over the years since its inception, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has faced several challenges, leading to its dilution and inefficiency in achieving its original purpose.

Introduction

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, of 2005, was introduced as a transformative law aimed at empowering citizens by granting them access to government-held information. This transparency law was seen as a step towards true democracy, enabling citizens to hold the government accountable.

RTI as a Powerful Tool

• Empowerment of Citizens: The RTI Act recognized citizens as rulers of the nation, enabling them to seek information from the government with dignity and respect.
• Curbing Corruption: By making information accessible, RTI was expected to reduce arbitrariness and corruption in governance.
• Transparency and Accountability: The Act codified the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, making India one of the countries with the best transparency laws.
• Information Commissions: The Act established Central and State Information Commissions (CIC/SICs) to act as appellate bodies in case of information denial.

How RTI Got Deviated from Its Objectives

Role of Commissioners and Bureaucratic Resistance

Initially, most Information Commissioners appointed were retired bureaucrats, who had spent their careers working within the system.

• Many commissioners treated their roles as post-retirement sinecures, working only for a few hours a day instead of actively enforcing transparency.
• The average disposal of cases by commissioners was low, whereas High Court judges handled more cases annually.
• Governments delayed the appointment of Information Commissioners, leading to a huge backlog of cases.

Timeline Issues in Delivering Information

As per the RTI Act:

• Public authorities must respond within 30 days to an RTI request.
• First appellate authorities must also decide within 30 days.
• However, no strict time limit was set for Information Commissioners, leading to delays of over a year in several cases.
• This converted the right to information into a right to history, as by the time the information was provided, it was often outdated.

Judicial Interpretations Weakening RTI

Courts played a critical role in diluting the effectiveness of RTI through controversial judgments.

Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (2011)

• The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8 exemptions should not be interpreted too strictly.
• The judgment stated that excessive RTI requests could obstruct national development, which provided a justification for restricting information.
• This led to RTI applicants being stigmatized as troublemakers.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (2012)

• The Supreme Court ruled that personal information is exempt from RTI under Section 8(1)(j).
• It did not analyze whether the requested information was related to public activity or whether its disclosure was in the larger public interest.
• This ruling set a precedent, allowing public authorities to deny information more frequently, converting RTI into Right to Deny Information (RDI).

Legislative Dilution of RTI

• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, amended the RTI Act by restricting access to personal data.
• This amendment further weakened RTI, allowing the government to withhold information on vague grounds of privacy.

Important Court Cases Related to RTI

Conclusion: Need for Citizen Vigilance

• Citizens must actively demand RTI enforcement and resist attempts to weaken it.
• The media and civil society must push for accountability and discuss issues surrounding the dilution of RTI.
• Courts should interpret the RTI Act in line with its original intent instead of restricting access to information.

Sharing is caring!