RTI and Media Law , LL.B Course , For Students of Media Law

1. Right To Information
By
Dr.Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Law centre II, Faculty of Law ,
University of Delhi.
Mobile :9079298265
Contact : legalsolutions01@gmail.com

2. Concept of Informed
citizenry & open society
In British India Secrecy was one of the rule of governance.
In British India Transparency was not essential
How citizen can feel difference between colonial &
Independence In Governance
It was Pressing Need of Indian Citizens, to Inform the actions
of Government , for transparent Governance
US Enacted Law giving the citizen a statutory right to
information in early 60s

3. Object of RTI ACT
 To established the Informed citizenry
 To make the society open
 To establish Transparency in governance

4. Contribution of judiciary
for RTI -
oUnion of India vs Association for
democratic Reform (2002) ,5 scc
oPeople’s union for civil Liberties vs.
Union of India (2003) 4 scc
oThen the legislation came in existence

5. Information As a Right
Information as a Right first time recognised in Scandinavian
countries and than after in US in 1960
After US, Canada ,New Zealand and Australia legislated Right
to information as a Law .
Some States In India Like Goa , TamilNadu, Rajasthan ,
Madhya Pradesh , Karnataka Maharashtra , Delhi and Assam.
Introduced Laws on the subject between the mid 90s
Finally Central Government Followed the same.
The campaign in India for right to Informationn evolved a
grass root level movement in Rajasthan in 1990s the Majdoor
Kisan Sakti Sanghatan (MKSS)

6. Behind the Legal Discourse
Universal Declaration of Human Right, 1948
reads “everyone has the right to freedom of
Information and expression
 The International covenant on civil and
political rights,1966 says that “ everyone shall
have the right to freedom of expression
,freedom to seek and impart information and
idea of all kind, regardless of frontiers “
Right to information is an inalienable
component of freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by Art. 19(1) .

7. RTI as an inalienable element of
Freedom of speech and Expression
Right to information is an inalienable component of freedom
of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1) held in
respective cases.
Bennet colman vs UOI (AIR.1973sc 106)
S.P. Gupta vs. UOI (AIR. 1982 sc,149.)
Secretary, Ministry of Information and broadcasting vs cricket
Association of west bengal 1995, 2 scc 161

8. Right to Information in
India
Freedom of information Bill 2000 introduced
in parliament
Freedom of Information Act 2002, Enacted
and then after repealed
A new legislation Right to Information Act
2005, came in force

9. Official secret Act 1923
This Act Prohibits the officers to communicate any official
information to outsiders , officers can not give information other
than authorised person ,
In British Era they may be deport from India.
This is Act of colonial mind set

10. Central civil service conduct
rules,1964, rule11
No Government servant shall, Except in
accordance with any general or special
order of government or in performance
in good faith of duties assigned to him ,
communicate directly or indirectly , any
official document or any part thereof or
information to any government
servant or any other person to whom is
not authorised to communicate

11. Evidence Act 1872
Sections 123, and 124 of Evidence Act 1872 gives blanket
power to the government to withhold the documents However
over the Time courts have diluted such powers given to
government
Sec. 123- No one shall be permitted to give any evidence
derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs
of state , except with the permission of officers at the head of
the department concerned who shall give or withhold such
permission
Sec 124- No public officer shall be compelled to disclose
communication made to him official confidence when he
consider that public interest would suffer by this disclosure.

12. CPIO, Supreme Court of India v.
Subhash Chandra Aggarwal,
AIR 2010 Delhi 159
Public authority and their privacy under RTI Act
proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
requires the examination of questions and issues involving
declaration as to personal assets of judges of the Supreme
Court, made to the Chief Justice of India, pursuant to a Full
Court resolution of the Supreme Court of India, made in 1997.
The petitioners challenge an order of the Central Information
Commission, dated 6th January, 2009, upholding the request of
the respondent who had applied for disclosure of certain
information concerning such declaration of personal assets, by
the judges

13. Public authority and their privacy
under RTI Act 2005
The facts of the case
 The “Applicant” had, on 10.11.2007 required the Central
Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India ("the
CPIO"), nominated under the Right to Information Act to
furnish a copy of the resolution dated 7.5.1997 of the Full
Court of the Supreme Court,
 Resolution requires every judge to make a declaration of all
assets. He further sought for information relating to declaration
of assets etc., furnished by the respective Chief Justices of
States.
By order dated 30th November, 2007, the CPIO informed the
applicant that a copy of the resolution dated 7.5.1997 would be
furnished on remitting the requisite charges.

14. The facts of the case
RTI Applicant was told that information relating to declaration
of assets by the judges was not held by or under the control of
the Registry of the Supreme Court and, therefore, it could not
be furnished.
The applicant challenged the second part of the impugned
order which held that the CPIO did not hold any information
regarding the declaration of assets. It was also contended that
if the CPIO was not holding the information, he should have
disclosed the authority holding such information and should
have referred the application to such an authority, invoking
Section 6 (3) of the Right to Information Act.

15. The facts of the case
Reply- you yourself knew that the information sought by you
is related to various High Court in the country and instead of
applying to those Public Authorities you have taken a short
circuit procedure by approaching the CPIO,
In view of this, the relief sought by you cannot be appreciated
and is against the spirit of Section 6 (3) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.”
 The CPIO submitted that the Registrar of the Supreme Court
did not hold the information. It was submitted that the 1997
Resolution was an in-house exercise; and the declaration
regarding assets of the judges is only voluntary
The resolution itself describes submission of such declarations
as “Confidential”.

16. The facts of the case
It was also contended that disclosure of the declarations
would be breach of a fiduciary relationship.
The CPIO further submitted that the declarations were
submitted to the Chief Justice of India not in his official
capacity but in his personal capacity and that any disclosure
would be violate of the 1997 resolution,
It was also contended that the disclosure would be contrary to
the provisions of section 8(1) of the Act.
The information, therefore, cannot be categorized as
"personal information" available with the Chief Justices in their
personal capacity.

17. Issues & arguments
Whether the CJI is a public authority and whether the CPIO, of
the Supreme Court of India, is different from the office of the
CJI; and if so, whether the Act covers the office of the CJI;
Answer: The CJI is a public authority under the Right to
Information Act and the CJI holds the information pertaining to
asset declarations in his capacity as Chief Justice; that office is
a "public authority" under the Act and is covered by its
provisions.

18. Issues & arguments
Whether asset declaration by Supreme Court judges, pursuant
to the 1997 Resolution are “information”, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005
Answer: It is held that the second part of the respondent's
application, relating to declaration of assets by the Supreme
Court judges, is “information” within the meaning of the
expression, under Section 2 (f) of the Act. The point is
answered accordingly; the information pertaining to
declarations given, to the CJI and the contents of such
declaration are “information” and subject to the provisions of
the Right to Information Act.

19. Issues & arguments
The only issue that needs to be determined is as to whether
the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court of India are
two distinct Public Authorities or one Public Authority.
Sec “2(h) “Public authority” means any authority or body or
institution of self - government established or constituted. "

20. Issues & arguments
provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution are read in view of
the above perspective, it would be clear that the Supreme Court
of India, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and such
number of judges as the Parliament may by law prescribe, is an
institution or authority of which the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India is the Head.
The institution and its Head cannot be two distinct public
authorities.
They are one and the same.
Information, therefore, available with the Chief Justice of India
must be deemed to be available with the Supreme Court of
India.
 The Registrar of the Supreme Court of India, which is only a
part of supreme court.

21. Issues & arguments
If such asset declarations are "information" does the CJI hold
them in a "fiduciary" capacity, and are they therefore, exempt
from disclosure under the Act
Answer: The petitioners’ argument about the CJI holding asset
declarations in a fiduciary capacity, (which would be breached if
it is directed to be disclosed, in the manner sought by the
applicant) is insubstantial. The CJI does not hold such
declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship.

22. Issues & arguments
Whether such information is exempt from disclosure by reason
of Section 8(1) (j) of the Act.
It is held that the contents of asset declarations, pursuant to
the 1997 resolution - and the 1999 Conference resolution- are
entitled to be treated as personal information, and may be
accessed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Section 8(1)(j); they are not otherwise subject to disclosure.
As far as the information sought by the applicant in this case is
concerned, (i.e. whether the declarations were made pursuant
to the 1997 resolution) the procedure under Section 8(1)(j) is
inapplicable.

23. Other cases
Chief information commissioner vs
state of Manipur AIR, 2012
b
CBSE vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay
2011, 8 scc

24. Thanks