Name – Md Nazir Ali

Course – BA. LLB (Hons)

Semester – 4th Semester

Student Id No. – 2111215001007

Registration No. – 210010079063

Topic – Right to Information (RTI)

 Table of contents
1.) RTI and its implementation in India?
2.) RTI and Right to Privacy?
3.) Comparative study of RTI in UK, USA and INDIA?
4.) 5 Important case on RTI in India?
5.) Write a short overview on RTI Act 2005?
1.) RTI and its implementation in India?

➔ RTI or Right to Information is a fundamental right of Indian citizens that empowers

them to seek information from public authorities. The RTI Act was passed by the
Indian Parliament in 2005 and came into effect on October 12, 2005. The main
objective of the RTI Act is to promote transparency and accountability in the
functioning of government institutions.

The implementation of RTI in India has been a mixed bag. On one hand, it has been
successful in empowering citizens and promoting transparency in government
functioning. On the other hand, there have been cases of misuse of the Act and lack
of proper implementation.

The process of filing an RTI application is simple and can be done online or offline.
The application must be addressed to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the
concerned department and should contain details of the information sought. The PIO
is required to provide the information within 30 days of receiving the application,
failing which the applicant can file an appeal with the First Appellate Authority
(FAA).

One of the major challenges in the implementation of RTI in India is the lack of
awareness among citizens about their rights and the procedures involved in filing an
application. Another challenge is the reluctance of public authorities to provide
information, especially when it concerns sensitive issues.

Despite these challenges, RTI has been successful in exposing corruption and
irregularities in government institutions. It has also helped in promoting transparency
and accountability in government functioning. With proper implementation and
awareness, RTI can be a powerful tool for citizens to hold public authorities
accountable and ensure good governance.
2.) RTI and Right to Privacy ?

➔ The Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy are two important rights that
are recognized in various legal frameworks. Here’s a brief explanation of each:

(i) Right to Information (RTI): The Right to Information is the right of

citizens to access information held by public authorities. It is based on
the principle that transparency and accountability are essential for a
functioning democracy. The RTI allows individuals to seek and receive
information from government departments, public bodies, and other
entities that are funded by the government or perform public functions.
This right enables citizens to make informed decisions, participate in
governance processes, and hold public authorities accountable.

(ii) Right to Privacy: The Right to Privacy is the right to be free from
unwarranted intrusion or interference in one's personal life, family,
home, or correspondence. It recognizes that individuals have a sphere of
autonomy and control over their personal information and activities. The
right protects individuals from surveillance, data breaches, unauthorized
disclosure of personal information, and other infringements on their
privacy.

The implementation of the RTI Act has sometimes been in conflict with the right to
privacy. The Act allows citizens to seek information from public authorities, which may
include personal information of individuals. This has led to concerns about the violation
of privacy rights.

To address this issue, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that personal information can
be disclosed under RTI only if it serves a larger public interest. The court has also
 emphasized that the right to information and the right to privacy are both fundamental
rights, and any conflict between them should be resolved by balancing the two rights.
In 2017, the government introduced the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, which
proposed changes to the Act, including allowing public authorities to reject RTI
applications that seek personal information unless it serves a larger public interest. This
move was criticized by activists and opposition parties, who argued that it would dilute
the effectiveness of the Act and curtail citizens’ right to information.

In conclusion, while the RTI Act has been a powerful tool for promoting transparency
and accountability in government functioning, it is important to balance it with the right
to privacy. Any changes to the Act should be made after careful consideration of both
these fundamental rights.

3.) Comparative study of RTI in UK, USA and INDIA ?

➔ The Right to Information (RTI) is a fundamental right of citizens in many countries,

including the UK, USA, and India. However, the implementation and effectiveness of
RTI laws vary in each country. Here is a comparative study of RTI in these three
countries:

UK:
The UK has the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) that allows citizens to
access information held by public authorities. The law covers all public bodies,
including government departments, local authorities, and the NHS. The Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is responsible for enforcing the FOIA.

Pros:
• The FOIA covers a wide range of public bodies.
• The ICO has the power to enforce the law and investigate complaints.
 • The law has been successful in uncovering information about government
decisions and policies.

Cons:
• The law has several exemptions, including national security and commercial
interests.
• The cost of making a request can be high, which may deter some citizens
from exercising their right.
• There is no obligation for public bodies to proactively disclose information.

USA:
The USA has the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that allows citizens to access
information held by federal agencies. Each state also has its own public records law.
The FOIA is enforced by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).

Pros:
• The FOIA covers federal agencies and provides access to a wide range of
information.
• The OGIS offers mediation services to resolve disputes between requesters
and agencies.
• The law has been used to uncover important information about government
activities.

Cons:
• The law has several exemptions, including national security and personal
privacy.
• Agencies can charge fees for processing requests, which may deter some
citizens from exercising their right.
• Some agencies have been criticized for delaying or denying requests.
 India:
India has the Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI) that allows citizens to access
information held by public authorities. The law covers all government bodies,
including the executive, legislature, and judiciary. The Central Information
Commission (CIC) is responsible for enforcing the RTI.

Pros:
• The RTI covers all government bodies and provides access to a wide range of
information.
• The CIC has the power to enforce the law and impose penalties on public
officials who violate it.
• The law has been successful in promoting transparency and accountability in
government.

Cons:
• The law has several exemptions, including national security and personal
privacy.
• Some public officials have been criticized for delaying or denying requests.
• There is no obligation for public bodies to proactively disclose information.

In conclusion, while all three countries have RTI laws, their effectiveness varies. The
UK and USA have similar laws that cover a wide range of public bodies, but they
also have several exemptions and high costs. India’s RTI law covers all government
bodies and has been successful in promoting transparency, but it also has exemptions
and delays in processing requests.

4.) 5 important cases on RTI in India ?

➔ The 5 important cases on RTI in India are:

i. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information
Commission & Ors

Facts

In this case, the petitioner asked his employer for copies of all memos, show-
cause notices, and sanctions against the third party, a public servant. Details on his
investments, credit, loans from banks, and other financial transactions were also
required in the application. He also wanted information on the presents that he
and his family gave at the wedding of his son. The respondent's income tax
returns included all of the information requested.

Issue

Whether the information sought comes under the criteria of ‘personal information’
as stipulated in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?

Judgement

It was decided that the petitioner's request for all information fell within the
purview of the Section. The actions and output of an employee within an
organisation are private between that employee and his employer and fall within
the notion of "personal information." The public interest is not served by such
disclosure, and such employees' privacy is harmed.

ii. R. Rajagopal & Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu

Facts
 Petitioners in this case were Nakkeeran, a Tamil magazine, employees. The
request from the employees was that the respondents not interfere with their
publication of a prisoner’s autobiography. Initially, the petitioners claimed that
this was a breach of their right of “ Speech of Expression”. But in the ratio of the
judgement, a ruling under Section 8(1)(j) was made.

Judgment

The respondents claimed the prisoner’s right to privacy, but it was agreed that
material already in the government would fall within the standard definition of a
public record. In these situations, the Right to Privacy can only very rarely be
invoked. Given that it does not safeguard information that is in the public interest,
it was agreed that this would be equivalent to Section 8(1)(j). It also warns that
certain information shouldn’t be shared because it might violate someone’s
privacy. The ruling did add that a public official’s right to privacy cannot be
violated while doing their official duties.

iii. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms

Facts

In this case, the Association for Democratic Reforms had petitioned the Delhi
High Court to compel the government to carry out specific suggestions outlining
how to improve the electoral process more transparent, fair, and equitable. The
Law Commission had submitted recommendations to the government that called
for the Election Commission to make it mandatory for candidates to provide their
personal background information, including their criminal history, financial
situation, credentials, and information to judge the candidate’s capacity.
 Judgment

After the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, the Election Commission
was directed to create the required rules to require all candidates to provide
information on the following aspects of their background:

(i) Criminal charges and convictions

(ii) Pending cases where the candidate is an accused
(iii) All assets including those of her spouse
(iv) All liabilities
(v) Educational qualification.

Citing Section 8(1)(j), the Court also stated that any information which will not
be denied to the Parliament or the State Legislature should not be denied to any
person.

iv. R.K. Jain v. Union of India

Facts

According to the RTI Act, the petitioner in this case asked the information
officer to provide copies of all the sheets and correspondence pages in a file
pertaining to Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, a judicial member of the Customs, Excise,
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. While personal information is exempt
under Section 8(1)(j), the Central Information Officer refused to provide the
file. A Supreme Court appeal was presented by the petitioner.
 Issue

1) Whether the ACR of an officer comes under personal information?

2) Does public interest override the privacy of the person?

Judgment

According to the court, documents of this kind including information on charges,

fines, or sanctions against an employee are always matters between that individual
and his employer and should not be disclosed because doing so could harm the
privacy of that person. The Court also affirmed the fact that the petitioner cannot
assert a right to the material in question if the information officer or the appellate
authority determines that the disclosure of such information is in the public
interest.

v. Pinki Ganirewal v. Union Public Service Commission

Facts

In this case, the petitioner requested information regarding the Service

Commission's selection list for the eleven Deputy Director of Mines Safety. The
information was made public together with the seniority-cum-merit list, but the
personal data of the chosen candidates was denied due to Section 8 exemption
rules.

Judgment

The Commission made a mistake by instructing the Service Commission to

withhold the requested material, the court said. It was determined that the
information sought is required for the greater good of the public, hence Section 8
 does not apply to the request or distribution. As long as the benefits exceed the
drawbacks, the court ordered that information on a person’s graduation year,
institution, caste, and year of birth can be made public.

5.) Write a short overview on RTI ACT 2005?

➔ The Right to Information Act 2005 is a landmark law in India that grants citizens the
right to access information held by public authorities. The law is based on the
principle that transparency and accountability are essential for good governance and
that citizens have the right to know how their government is functioning.

The RTI covers all government bodies, including the executive, legislature, and
judiciary. It allows citizens to request information on any matter of public interest,
including government policies, decisions, and actions. The law also requires public
authorities to proactively disclose certain types of information, such as budgets,
contracts, and reports.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) is responsible for enforcing the RTI and
has the power to order public authorities to disclose information. The CIC also hears
appeals from citizens who have been denied information or who are dissatisfied with
the response they have received.

The RTI has been successful in promoting transparency and accountability in

government. It has empowered citizens to hold public officials accountable for their
actions and has helped expose corruption and malfeasance. The law has also been
used to access information on a wide range of issues, including environmental
protection, public health, and government spending.

However, the RTI has its limitations. There are exemptions to the law, such as
information related to national security or personal privacy. Additionally, there have
been delays in processing requests, and some public authorities have been reluctant to
disclose information.

Despite its limitations, the RTI Act 2005 has been a significant step towards
promoting good governance in India. It has given citizens the power to demand
transparency and accountability from their government and has helped build a culture
of openness and accountability. The law has also been instrumental in promoting
citizen participation in governance and has helped bridge the gap between citizens
and their government.

Overall, the RTI Act 2005 is an important tool for promoting good governance in
India. It has helped strengthen democracy by giving citizens the power to hold their
government accountable and has created a culture of transparency and openness.
However, there is still much work to be done to ensure that the law is fully
implemented and that citizens are able to access the information they need to
participate fully in the democratic process.