The Right to Information Act (RTI Act) was enacted in 2005. Good governance, transparency and accountability are the three principles on which it rests. Our constitution implicitly guarantees the right of citizens to information. But parliament also considered it necessary to create a practical regime which citizens can use to get information from public authorities and which will encourage transparency and accountability of public agencies.
International experience also influencedIndianlawmakers in theirefforts to create a framework for freedom of information. RTI Act represents a radical departure from the earlier bureaucratic practices. Formerly, government business was transacted in an atmosphere of secrecy. Government servants were expected not to divulge information to which they become privy in their official work. They had to be discreet, and share information on ‘a need to know basis’. They could share information only with those who needed it for performingtheir official duties. Many files were routinely classified as ‘confidential’ and ‘secret’. At one time, even the audit teams of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) were denied access to the ‘noting section’ of a government file. Incidentally,the noting section contains the analysis at various levels of government leading to decision on any matter. CAG had to comment on matters based on government’s final order incorporating the decision, and the various letters and other correspondence on the file without knowing how government processed the matter.
Government also hadthepower of withholding secret documents and filesfromthe courts.There is still an Official Secrets Act on the anvil. However, over a period of time courts whittled down the powers of government to withhold information from courts. Further, the emergence of ‘investigative reporting’ led to exposure of many matters formerly kept outside public view. Computers, internet and mobile telephony have eroded the traditional modes of secrecy. In this age of information explosion, fewareascanremainin shades or shadows.
There was growing recognition that secrecy in government breeds misuse of power and corruption. Power wielders will be greatly encouraged if they know that their black deeds will never see the light of the day. Many examples such as Watergate scandal and Pentagon Papers have reinforced this consideration. Freedom of information and transparency were seen as important parameters of democratic governance.
Sweden enacted the first freedom of information law in 1766. But it was driven by parliament’s desire to get the information with the King. USA passed its first freedom of information law in 1966. Thislaw shiftedthe onus of justifyingrestriction of access to information on government. It placedtime limit on public authorities for responding to requests for information. If secret information is mixed up in a filewithothermatters,all non-secretinformationis treated as disclosablethroughits ‘severability’. The law provided for disciplinary action against officials for wrongful non-disclosure. Denmark and Norway passed right to information laws in 1970s and UK in 2000. In the wake of the Watergate scandal in 1974, USA passed a strong freedom of information law in 1976. Many other countries later followed suit. The number of national information laws increased from just 13 in 1990 to over 852 in2011.
RTI laws seek to ensure that the government activities are transparent, fair and open. Except in mattersof defence,atomicenergyandnationalsecurity, no secrecyis normallynecessaryin government affairs.For example,whethergovernment takes a decision affectingthe people or whether it entersinto a transaction involving purchase or sale of government property or whether it enters into a contract
– in all these matters, the government should act transparently. In other words, if a citizen wants any information on any of these matters, he should be entitled to receiveit. SupremeCourt JusticeMathew has observed: “In a government of responsibility like ours, where all agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but 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….to cover with veil of secrecy the common routine business, is not in the interest of public”.
As we noted before, the Official Secrets Act (1923) enacted during the British rule governed the disclosure of information held by public authorities in India. The Supreme Court of India had in several judgments prior to enactment of the RTI Act, construed the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the ‘right to life’ as embodying also the right to information. The Supreme Court held: “Thefreedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and todisseminate it. Freedom of speech and expression is necessary, for self-expression which is an important means of free conscience and self-fulfilment.”
Side by side, the right to information became the focus of a protest movement. A group of poor wage workers in central Rajasthan demanded right to information (RTI) while protesting against ghost entries in musterrolls.False muster rollsshowinflated attendance on worksinorder to siphon off public funds in the guise of wage payments. These muster rolls related to drought relief works which government opened to provide wage employment to drought affected villagers. To check this form of corruption, protesters demanded official information recorded in government rolls related to drought relief work. This would naturally help them to expose the malpractices. The movement spread to various parts of Rajasthan, leading to a nationwide movement for the RTI and related statelegislations.It was,in fact,stateslike Tamil Nadu (1997),Goa (1997) andRajasthan(2000) that first enacted RTI laws.
The demand for a national RTI law started under the leadership of National Campaign on People’s Right to Information (NCPRI). The central government recognised the importance of this law. The Freedom of Information Bill (2000) was passed in the Parliament in 2002. But as government did not issuethe necessarygazette notification,thislaw never cameinto effect.
