origin and development of rti:

Democracy is undoubtedly a political value, reflected in particular pattern and form of

governance Democracy means freedom and liberty and it t also values critical opinion of an
individual or a group, different from a set of established practice of the society, whatever
radical in nature (with certain limitations). It teaches the society to honor the worthiness and
potentiality of other views. All these come under the purview of “Right to Freedom of Speech
and Expression.

Constitution of India guarantees for its citizens certain basic freedoms, one of such is
declared as: ALL CITIZENS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION5.

it is very essential for all round development of people, it is also a sine-qua-non for
the flourishing of democracy in all its dimensions. Hence, when “Freedom of Speech and
Expression” is so indispensable to the functioning of democracy, law must ensure that
exercise of “Right to Speech” (including any expression) is not based on falsehood.
Therefore, pre-requisite to “Freedom of Speech and Expression” is access to all information,
either about affairs of government or private bodies”.

In the history of Constitutional jurisprudence of India, a milestone was created when

Supreme Court conferred the status of Fundamental Right on “Right to Information” under
Article 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India. While including the “Right to Information” within
the purview of “Freedom of Speech and Expression”, it actually had shown the real horizon
of this named Fundamental Right. This judicial journey started in India when an unnamed
right i.e. Freedom Of Press was recognized within the purview of “Freedom of Speech And
Expression” long back which paved the way for “Right to Information” as Fundamental
Right today.

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS AND PROVISONS

The Indian constitution has an array of basic and inalienable rights termed as Fundamental
rights contained in Chapter III. These include the right to equal protection of the laws and the
right to equality before the law, the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to
life and personal liberty. These are backed by the right to Constitutional Remedies under
Article 32. The legal position with regard to the right to information has developed through
several Supreme Court decisions given in the context of fundamental rights. The legal
discourse on the right to information started with petitions of the press to the Supreme Court
for enforcement of certain logistical implications of the right of freedom of speech and
expression such as challenging governmental orders for control of newsprint.

 ARTICLE 19(1)(a)
This provision guarantees the fundamental right to free speech and expression, which
includes within it the right to access information. The pre-requisite for enjoying this right
is knowledge and information. Thus the right to information becomes a constitutional
right as the right to free speech also guarantees right to receive and collect and
information. Article 19(2) permits the State to make such laws as to impose reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the freedoms guaranteed under this provision on grounds
 such as security of the state, sovereignty and integrity of India and other grounds as
enumerated in the provision.

 ARTICLE 21
This article talks about right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to know
about things that affect our lives. The expression ―life and personal liberty‖ is a broad term,
which includes within itself variety of rights and attributes. The Supreme Court read into this
article as a broad right to include right to know within its purview. The apex court held that
―right to know is a necessary ingredient of participatory democracy……... It is wide enough
to expand to a full range of rights including the right to hold a particular opinion and the right
to sustain and nurture that opinion. It confers on all persons a right to know which includes
right to information.

 ARTICLE 32
This article guarantees a right to constitutional remedies on the situation of a violation of the
fundamental right of any citizen. The constitution also imposes certain duties upon the
citizens under Article 51 A. A fully informed citizen is better equipped for the performance
of these duties. RTI is not specifically mentioned in the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution, and does not fall under any of three subject lists of the Constitution. As such it
is a residuary matter and the power to legislate on such matters rests with the Central
government.

In this background, four leading judgments are analysed where the issue of “Right to
Information” directly or indirectly involved to trace out the origin and nature of Constitutional
jurisprudence of it.

In RomeshThappar v. State of Madras9,is the first judgment of the Supreme Court of India,
where a six judge Constitution Bench (Saiyid Fazal Ali. J. dissenting), planted the sapling of unnamed
right i.e. ‘Freedom of Press’ in the garden of Fundamental Rights (without expressly mentioning it as
such) as facet of ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’, under Article 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India,
as is clearly evident from the following observation (in the form of propagation of ideas), but fact
remains that ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ and ‘Freedom of Press’ are explained under two
separate headings not as inclusive to each other:

“There can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of
propagation of ideas, and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation. Liberty of
circulation is as essential to that freedom as the liberty of publication. Indeed, without circulation
the publication would be of little value.”

“...this was doubtless due to the realisation that freedom of speech and of the press lay at
the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public
education, so essential for the proper functioning of the processes of popular government, is
possible.”
 Thereafter, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi10 is the most significant judgment (delivered on
the same day with the RomeshThappar v. State of Madras), where the same six judge Constitution
Bench (Saiyid Fazal Ali. J. dissenting), echoed the same thinking that “Freedom of Press” is essential
part of “Freedom of Speech and Expression”, in a direct way for the first time. This judgment is
engraved in the Constitutional jurisprudence of India, not only due to the reason of
recognition/discovery of FREEDOM OF PRESS by it as first recognition/discovery of an unnamed right
under “Freedom of Speech and Expression” of Article 19 (1) (a) but also an instance of first
recognition/inclusion before any other named Fundamental Right under Part III of Constitution of
India itself. The construction of ArticlE 19(1) (a) paved the way for further recognition/discovery of
many unnamed rights in future not only for Article 19 but also for Article 21 of Constitution of India.
If the Ratio-Decidendi of this judgment is seen, then it would be crystal clear:

“There can be little doubt that the imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a restriction
on the liberty of the press which is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression
declared by Article 19 (1)(a). As pointed out by Blackstone in his Commentaries “the liberty of the
press consists in laying no previous restraint upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for
criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he
pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press.

 The direct linking of ‘Freedom of Press’ with ‘Freedom of Speech and

Expression’ got a fillip when in Express Newspapers v. Union Of India13, a
six judge Constitution Bench (unanimous view), viewed ‘Freedom of Press’ as
inclusive of ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ under Article 19 (1) (a) and
restrictions imposed on it, not saved by Article 19 (2), were absolutely
unconstitutional:

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain17, a five judge Constitution Bench (Kurien Mathew. J
concurring), apex Court admitted (in a negative way) the necessity of disclosure of
documents (regarding the affairs of the State) before the Court by ignoring the “Protection
Clause” of section 123 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, if it is not against public interest.

From the governance perspective, the apex Court felt the indispensability of keeping the
confidential information (documents which were sought to be submitted before court) under
veil of secrecy due to the reason of public interest. The facts of this case have a direct bearing
on ‘Right to Information’ though in a covert way, because the access of the above-referred
documents to the court will result in its disclosure to the person concerned, later.

In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India18 the crux of the issue was the transfer of judges
from one High Court to another High Court. The main question was disclosure of information
before apex Court which were needed to determine the constitutionality of existing process of
transfer of judges. the apex Court takes the stand by stating that disclosure of information in
regard to the functioning of Government must be the rule and secrecy is an exception
justified only where the strictest requirement of ‘Public Interest’ so demands and advices for
maintaining a balance between ‘public interest’ and ‘state interest’

The concept of an open government is the direct emanation fromthe right to know
which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a).

Finally, in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket

Association of Bengal19, (a three judge Bench) Supreme Court has expressly stated that
‘Right To Freedom Of Speech and Expression’ includes ‘Right To Information’:

44. The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and to
disseminate it.....

78. However, the right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to
educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and
entertained.

124. [ii] The right to impart and receive information is a species of the right of
freedom of speech and expression-the best means of imparting and receiving information and
as such to have an access to telecasting for the purpose.

In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [26] judgment, the apex court held
that the right of the voters to know about the past history including criminal records of the candidate
contesting elections for MPs or MLAs is much more fundamental and basic than the privileges of the
MPs or MLAs for a democracy to thrive. Voters speak or express by casting votes and for this purpose,
information about the candidates to be selected must be made public.

History of RTI Act 2005 in India: Evolution

From time to time, there have been many moves by government as well as private
institutions to bring right to information to the citizen. I have listed below various
important events in the evolution of the RTI Act, 2005 that made history of RTI Act 2005
in India.

1977: Janata Government headed by Morarji Desai constituted a working group to

ascertain if the Official Secrets Act, 1923 could be modified so as to facilitate greater
flow of information to the public. The working group recommended that the Act of 1923
should be retained without change.
1986: In the famous case of Mr. Kulwal v/s Jaipur Municipal Corporation the Supreme
Court gave clear cut directive that Freedom of Speech and Expression provided under
Article 19 of the Constitution clearly implies Right to Information as without information
the freedom of speech and expression cannot be fully used by the citizens.
1990: Heading the National Front government, Prime Minister V.P Singh, first politician
to lay emphasis on RTI, stressed on the importance of Right to Information as a legislated
right. He tried to enact legislation in 1989-90. But, due to the political instability at the
time, the idea did not materialize and V P Singh was removed from office in 1990, as his
government lost the confidence vote in Lok Sabha.
1994: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan (MKSS) started a grassroots campaign for Right
to Information – demanding information concerning development works in rural
Rajasthan. This movement grew and the campaign resulted in the government of
Rajasthan enacting a law on Right to Information in 2000.
1995: Draft Act was formulated in a meeting of social activists at the LBSNAA,
Mussoorie, 1995.
1996: National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), one among several
civil society groups, was founded with the objective of getting legislation on RTI passed.
Due to the growing demand for right to information, the Press Council of India under
guidance of its Chairman Justice P B Sawant drafted a law which was later updated and
changed at a workshop and renamed “The Press Council–NIRD Freedom of Information
Act, 1997.
1997: Tamilnadu became the first state in India to have passed a law on Right to
Information.
1997: The Madhya Pradesh Government issued executive orders to 36 departments to
implement Right to Information which later increased to more than 50 departments.
1997: The Working Group, under Chairmanship of H D Shourie, appointed by the United
Front government, drafted the Freedom of Information Bill, 1997.
1997: Goa legislature enacted a law on Right to Information.
1998: The Government of Madhya Pradesh tabled a Bill on Right to Information, which
was passed by the legislature. The Bill didn’t become Law because the Governor denied
assent.
1998: When the NDA came to power, Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee assured the nation
that a Law on Right to Information shall be enacted soon.
1999: Government restrained Ministers.
1999: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before Supreme Court to: Lift restraint on
Ministers; Declare Section 5 of Official Secret Act, 1923 unconstitutional; Ask
Government of India to issue suitable instructions for RTI, pending legislation.
1999: Union Urban Affairs Minister passed an administrative order on transparency in
the Urban Affairs Ministry.
2000: Freedom of Information Bill, 2000 was introduced in Parliament, and was referred
to a Select Committee of Parliament.
2001: NCT Delhi assembly passed a law on Right to Information.
2002: Report of Select Committee in early 2002.
2002: Freedom of Information Bill, 2000 was passed in both houses of Parliament in
December 2002. This was a watered down version of the bill proposed by NCPRI and
other organizations.
2002: In September, Maharashtra Government passed RTI Ordinance that overwrote the
Maharashtra RTI Act, 2000.
2002: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by its order dated 2nd May, 2002 in Civil
Appeal No. 7178 of 2001 (Union of India vs. Association for Democratic reforms and
another) directed the Election Commission to call for information on affidavit by issuing
necessary order in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India
from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a state legislature as a necessary
part of his nomination paper.
2003: Freedom of Information Bill received the assent of the President of India on 6th
January, 2003, and became law, known as Freedom of Information Act, 2002 Act No. 5
of 2003.
2003: On 31st January MP Government passed MP RTI Act.
2003: In August, Maharashtra Government converted its Ordinance into new RTI
Act.2004UPA Government came to power in 2004. The National Advisory Council
(NAC), also known as the shadow government, was formed under Mrs. Sonia Gandhi.
The main objective of the Council was to monitor implementation of government
schemes and advise government on policy and law.
2004: NCPRI formulated amendments to Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and
forwarded to the NAC. NAC endorsed with minor changes and recommended to the
Government (Prime Minister). There was reluctance among politicians and bureaucrats in
adopting these changes. There was an attempt made to re-notify the earlier Freedom of
Information Act; This move faced widespread protests by citizens and civil society.
2004: Finally, on 23rd December 2004, UPA Government tabled the RTI Bill 2004,
applicable only to the Union Government. The civil society was not happy with this.
Most of the information required by the common man was from state governments. The
bill did not serve the purpose of the common man. Some members of the NAC too were
unhappy with this. After heavy lobbying by NCPRI and other organizations the Right to
Information Act, 2005 was passed with 150 amendments. Bill is now applicable to States
also.
2005: RTI Bill was passed in Lok Sabha on 11th May 2005, and in Rajya Sabha on 12th
May 2005. It received assent of President of India on 15th June 2005, and was published
in the Gazette of India on 21st June 2005. RTI Act, 2005 came into force with effect from
12th October 2005, and known as Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005).
The above mentioned list of events does not contain all important events in the history of
RTI Act 2005 in India, rather contains only those events that had been influential in the
evolution of RTI Act 2005 in India

Objectives of the Right to Information Act,

2005
The objectives of the RTI Act, 2005 are as follows:

1. To provide for a practical framework that allows the citizens to access the
information under the control of public authorities.
2. To promote transparency and accountability in the working of governments and
their instrumentalities.
3. To provide for the constitution of Information Commissions at state and national
level for discharging the functions and exercising the powers under the Act.
4. To develop an informed citizenry.
5. To contain corruption.
6. To lay down the exemptions to disclosure of information when such disclosure is
likely to conflict with other public interests and to harmonise these conflicting
interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal.
 SALIENT FEATURES:

CONCLUSION : IT is often said that in modern society information is power. “The real
Swaraj[2] will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few, but by the acquisition of
capacity by all to resist authority when abused” BY GANDHI

The guarantee of “Freedom of Speech and Expression” would be meaningless unless

necessary “Right to Information” is included in its ambit. It would enable the citizens to
enjoy the rights guaranteed by it in the fullest extent.

Unless, all private bodies, not covered by Article 12 or Section 2 (h) of RTI Act, are brought
within the purview of “Right to Information” so that citizens can have access to information
from them, by making the system a horizontal one, basic objects of Fundamental Rights as
envisaged in Preamble to Constitution of India and OBJECTIVE CLAUSE of Right to
Information Act 2005 will remain un-fulfilled. To some extent, the enforcement of “Right to
Information” has been made horizontal under Article 19 (1) (a) when (in spite of all
limitations) Supreme Court in Cricket

Association of Bengal judgment, put the primary obligation of realizing the citizens’ “Right
to Information” upon a non-State entity (CAB/BCCI) with a little bit touch of State and in
Right to Information Act, whiling fixing up the responsibility upon “Public Authorities” to
furnish the information to the citizens, the Government has gone some steps away from
Article 12 of Constitution of India (enforceability of “Right to information” as Fundamental
Right against State) and brought many non-State entities within the purview of “Public
Authorities” which are not considered as state under Article 12 of Constitution of India, but it
is not complete horizontal in nature, because many other non-State (non-Govt.) entities
remain outside this trajectory of Fundamental Right and Statutory Right.