The Right to Information Act, 2005 is widely hailed to be one of the best enactments concerning access to information to public, with an excellent implementation record. The soul of the RTI Act can be understood by its Preamble- "Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed". Keeping this goal in mind this presentation would strive to describe the ambit and scope of the RTI Act by categorizing the relevant provisions of the Act under four distinct blocks. The first block includes all provisions related to the Right to Access in context of the 'information’, 'public authority', 'record', 'right to information' under Sections 2 and 3 and the interpretation accorded to the same by the State Information Commissions, Central Information Commission and the various High Courts and the Supreme Court during the last decade . The second block includes provisions dealing with the Procedural Guarantees that ensure an application to the PIO seeking information that can be disclosed under this Act is efficiently and effectively disposed of. The third block deals with provisions related to exceptions from disclosing the information which are listed out in Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 24 of the Act. However, these exceptions come with some provisos under which the information exempted can be disclosed under certain circumstances and one such prime reason as seen in judicial pronouncements is ‘The Larger Public Interest’. The fourth block deals with the provisions related to Appeals, Sanctions and Protections. Further, the presentation will substantiate relevant case laws where the RTI Act has indeed helped citizens realize the principles enshrined in the Preamble and will highlight the challenges confronting the RTI and also suggest ways to move forward.

1. Scope and Ambit of the RTI
Act -
A Comparative Perspective
By
Sonali Malik1
Trinadh Kumar Potina2
1
A presentation made on 28-10-2016
at the inaugural Seminar, Debate and Discussion Society (SDS) meeting

2. Agenda for today
1. Difference between Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom
of Expression and Freedom of Information.
2. History of the Freedom of Information Laws the World over.
3. RTI IN INDIA
1. The genesis of Right to Information in India
2. The steps towards a national level enactment for RTI
4. THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.
1. The Preamble
2. The Provisions of the RTI Act, 2005
3. Provisions related to the Right to Access to Information
4. Provisions related to Procedural Guarantees
5. Provisions related to Exceptions
6. Provisions related to Appeals, Sanctions and Protections
5. Challenges and the Road Ahead.
6. Conclusion.
7. Bibliography.
07/11/16 2

3. Difference between Freedom of Speech, Press,
Expression and Information
• All four Freedoms1
used interchangeably but are fundamentally separate.
• FoS - addresses the ability of individuals to communicate ideas and information
without interference from the State.
• FoP- includes the absence of prior restraint on the voice of the Press.
• FoE - includes the freedom to speak, write, print and publish. It may also
protect the communication of ideas or opinions through purely physical acts.
• FoI- means the ability of individuals to gain access to information
held by or in the possession of the State.
Access to information means the ability of
individuals to seek and receive
information and their right to be informed
on the past, present and future activities07/11/16 31.

4. History of the Freedom of Information Laws the
World over
• Sweden in 1766 (Freedom of Press Act) - enabled the Parliament have access to
information held by the King.
• Colombia’s 1888 Code of Political and Municipal Organization gave its
citizens the right to request documents held by government agencies in government
archives.
• Finland (1951), USA (1967), Denmark (1970), Norway (1970), France (1978), the
Netherlands (1978), Australia (1982), Canada (1982), New Zealand (1982), Greece
(1986), Austria(1987), Italy(1990) etc.,
• Situation in 2013 – 95 Countries have enacted FoI laws. 5 countries in 2016 –
Philippines, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Togo and Vietnam. Every country in South Asia
except Bhutan have FOI laws. India enacted the RTI Act in 2005.
• Even conservative regimes like Jordan (2005), China (2007) and Nepal (2007)
have enacted FoI laws.07/11/16 4

5. History of the Freedom of Information Laws the World over
cntd..
• Since the dawn of new millennium the term RTI is used instead of FoI.
• United Nations, World Bank, The Commonwealth, regional human rights bodies
and mechanisms at the Organization of American States, the Council of Europe and
the African Union recognized this fundamental human right to access information.
• Underlying principle - Information held by the public bodies is not for
themselves but for the public and if it is kept secret it would seriously
undermine the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed under
international law as well as most constitutions and municipal laws.
07/11/16 5

6. RTI in INDIA
 The genesis of Right to Information in India :
1. British Government thrived on secrecy. Continued in Post Independent India
2. Secrecy was the rule and Transparency the exception.
3. Fight for RTI has 2 main demands:
1. Amendment of the draconian Official Secrets Act, 1923
2. Effective piece of legislation for the RTI
4. India, FoI’s origin lies in Article 19(1)(a)-Freedom of Speech and Expression.
5. The view was upheld by SC in various judgments:
1. People’s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India- “Right to information is a facet
of the freedom of ‘speech and expression’ as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and
thus is an indisputable Fundamental Right”.
2. State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain- “People must be kept informed of the important decisions
taken by the government to ensure their continued participation in the democratic process”
3. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India vs. The
Cricket Association of Bengal- “Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to
acquire information and disseminate it”
07/11/16 6

7. RTI in INDIA cntd..
6. Pioneered by Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) which led a campaign to
demand transparency of official records, a social audit of government spending and a
mechanism of redressal for people who haven’t been given their due.
7. States that took the lead to enact the RTI laws pioneered by TN (1997), Goa (1997) and
followed by Rajasthan (2000), Karnataka (2000), Delhi (2001), Assam (2002), Maharashtra
(2002), MP (2003) and J&K (2004).
 Steps towards a national level enactment for RTI:
1. NCPRI spearheaded the demand for RTI. Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill, 2000
passed in the Parliament in 2002. Never notified, never came into effect.
2. NAC under UPA took interest in RTI.
3. The RTI Act came into effect from 12th
October, 2005.
07/11/16 7

8. The Right to Information Act, 2005
 The Preamble:
1. For: Setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to
secure access to information under the control of public authorities.
2. Says: Democracy requires informed citizenry and transparency of
information which are vital to its functioning
3. Aim: To promote transparency and accountability in the working of every
public authority.
 Provisions of RTI Act, 2005:
1. As amended in 2014, the Act contains 31 sections with 2 schedules.
2. Together with The Central Information Commission
(Management) Regulations, 2007 and The Right to Information
Rules, 2012, it is one of the most comprehensive FOI enactments.
3. Duality in structure(Central and State) - for disclosure of information and for
grievance redressal.
07/11/16 8

9. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions under
4 blocks
1. Right to Access.
2. Right to Procedural Guarantees.
3. Exceptions for disclosure of information.
4. Right to Appeals, Sanctions and Protections
07/11/16 9

10. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions for Right to
Access
1. Sec.3 - subject to provisions of the Act, all Citizens shall have a right to
information.
2. Section.2(f) defines ‘Information’ and it deals with one of the most
contentious issues under the Act.
1. means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions,
advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples,
models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private
body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being
in force.
2. In Shri Vibhor Dileep Barla v. Central Excise & Customs, CIC held
‘Information’ means:
1. 'Information' under Section.2(f) has to be read in conjunction with definition of
'record' in Section.2(i).
2. Information in existence.
3. Information held or which can be accessed by a Public Authority. Information 'non-
est' can't be sought.
4. Act doesn't mandate to create information for disclosure
5. Opinion or advice on record, but one cannot ask the PIO for an opinion or advice.
6. Analysis, Inferences, Conclusions based on data doesn’t fall under ‘information’.
07/11/16 10

11. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions for Right to
Access
3. In Satyapal v.CPIO TCIL, FB of CIC held that file notings fall within Sec.2(f).
“No file would be complete without the note sheets having file notings. File Notings are
an integral part of a file.”
4. In Shri Manohar Parrikar & Ors v. Accountant General of Goa, Orissa
and Punjab, audit observations, notes, memos of audit reports are information.
5. Most imp requirement under S.2(f) – as held by the CIC in S.K Ranga v.
Container Corporation of India – information sought by the applicant should be
clearly specified and not in vague and ambiguous terms.
07/11/16 11

12. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions for Right to
Access
Sec.2(h) – ‘Public Authority’ means any authority or body or institution of self- government established
or constituted by or under the Constitution of India; by any law made by the Parliament or the State
legislature; all those bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed including NGOs substantially
financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
Substantial Funding?: that funding by which a body practically runs and but for such funding it would
struggle to exist (SC decision in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd . & Ors v. State of
Kerala & Ors).
Public Authorities: The Debate
1. In K.C.Sharma v. Delhi Stock Exchange -Stock Exchanges are PA.
2. In Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Supreme Court of India – SC and CJI are Pas (Article
124)
3. Attorney General of India: Denied by the CIC. Held PA by Delhi HC in SC Agrawal & Ors
v. Office of the Attorney General of India.
Not Public Authorities
1. In Shri Shanmuga Patro v. Rajiv Gandhi Foundation : An NGO with 4% funding.
2. In Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Indian National Congress & Ors Held by CIC that
6 National Parties as PAs. Rejected by the SC.
07/11/16 12

13. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions for Right to
Access
3. Sec.2(j) – Right to Information accessible under this Act which is held
by or under the control of any public authority can be disclosed
and it includes the right to inspection of work, documents, records; taking
notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; taking certified
samples; obtaining information in electronic mode etc.,
In Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer & Ors, Hon’ble SC held
– “ an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the
PA under any other law for the time being in force”
In Dr. Ishan Ghosh v. PIO Eastern Railway, FB of CIC held Act only applies to
such info that is held by or under the control of PA but not to information that the
public authority through relevant statutory mechanism or procedure is willing to part07/11/16 13

14. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions for Right to
Access
4. Sec.2(i) – ‘Record’ includes any document or manuscript, microfilm or facsimile,
reproduction or any material produced by a computer.
In Shri Pyare Lal Verma V. Ministry of Railways & Ministry of
Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions, it was held by the CIC that the
definitions of both the words “information” and “record” are inclusive definitions.
07/11/16 14

15. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions for Right to Procedural
Guarantees
1. Sec.4 talks about the obligations of public authorities which includes the Duty to
Publish
2. Sec.4(1) of the RTI Act imposes on the Public Authority broad obligations of
proactive and routine publication to facilitate the right to information.
3. Sec.4(2) states that it shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to
take steps to provide information at regular intervals to the public suo motu
through various means of communication including the internet, so that the public
have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information.
4. Sec.4(3) mandates that information shall be disseminated in such form and
manner so as to give easy accessibility to the public.
5. Sec.4(4) says that such dissemination should take into consideration criteria like
cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of
communication in that local area.
07/11/16 15

16. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions for Right to Procedural
Guarantees
1. Sec.6 (1)- guidelines for obtaining information – Mandates PIOs to render
assistance to the applicant if he cannot make the application in writing.
2. Sec.6(2) – Applicant need not give any reason (Madhu Badhuri v. Director,
DDA) for requesting information and his personal details except those that may be
necessary to contact him (Mr Avishek Goenka v. UOI ). Salient feature of RTI Act
in India). Laws in US, UK, Sweden mandate disclosure of reason for asking information
and personal details.
3. Sec.6(3) - transfer of application made to a Public Authority to whom the request
is made to another Public Authority who actually holds information. In Shri Ketan
Kantilal Modi V. Central Board of Excise and Customs, (CIC) - decision to
transfer the application rests with the PA and applicant needs to exercise ‘Due
Diligence’ to identify the appropriate PA.07/11/16 16

17. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions for Right to Procedural
Guarantees
4. Sec.7 deals with the provisions related to disposal of an RTI application
5. Sec.7(1) – Request for information must be responded as soon as possible and not
later than 30 days of the receipt of the request either with
a. Information sought, or;
b. Rejection (reasons to be stated and details for appeal needs to be furnished)
* Information concerning the life and liberty of a person needs to be
responded within 48 hours.
If application accepted and further fee is needed, Sec.7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and
Sec.4 of The Right to Information Rules, 2012 are applied.
07/11/16 17

18. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Provisions for Right to Procedural
Guarantees
6. Sec.7(5) - fee prescribed shall be reasonable and applicants below the poverty line
are exempted from paying the fee.
7. Sec.7(6) - when the Public Authority bound to give information fails to comply with
the time limits prescribed for furnishing the information under sub-section(1), the
same shall be furnished free of cost to the applicant.
8. Sec.7(9) - Information shall normally be provided in the form in which it is sought
unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or be
detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question
07/11/16 18

19. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
1. Ss 8, 9, 11, 24 deal with exceptions for disclosing information- Access is
the rule of the Act, these sections are the exceptions.
2. Section 8 can be said to divided into two parts, Section 8(1) (a) to (j),
and second part Section 8(2) and 8(3) have overriding effect on
Section 8(1).
3. Section 8 imposes an absolute bar on disclosure in the following,
provisions-S.8 (1) (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h), and the Second proviso to S.8 (1)
(i) creates a conditional exemption from disclosure.
07/11/16 19

20. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
7 instances where there is an absolute exemption from disclosure of information
 Where disclosure will prejudice the sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific
interest of the State, of the state or such disclosure might lead to incitement of offence - S. 8 (1)
(a).
 Where information is prohibited by court of law or tribunal – S. 8(1) (b).
 Disclosure will cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature – S.8(1)
(c).
 Where information is received from confidence from foreign countries - S.8(1) (f).
 Where information will endanger life of a whistleblower - S.8(1) (g).
 Where information once disclosed will impede the process of investigation - S.8(1) (h).
 Records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. However,
decisions of Council of Ministers, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken07/11/16 20

21. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
Three Circumstances, under 8(1), in which Larger Public Interest warrants
disclosure
(Conditional exemption from disclosure)
• Section 8 (1) (d) – exempts of ‘information including commercial confidence,
trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the
competitive position of a third party’, unless the competent authority is satisfied
that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information (Discretion)
• Section 8 (1) (e) – exempts of ‘information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship’, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public
interest warrants the disclosure of such information (Discretion)
• Section 8(1)(j)- exempts ‘information which relates to personal information
the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest,
or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy’ of the individual
unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the appellate authority, is satisfied that the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Proviso to this section states that
the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State2107/11/16

22. The Right to Information Act, 2005: ‘Public Interest’ - Exception to the
Exceptions
What is ‘Public Interest’?
 The expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of a precise
definition. (Are we seeking Maximum Utility (Bentham) or Protection to Minority
Rights)
 It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the
statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and
needs. (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh )
 It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and
protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake.( Black law’s
dictionary)
07/11/16 22

23. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
What is a Fiduciary Relationship? (Section 8(1)(e)
(Justice Ravindra Bhat in Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra
Agrawal - Judge’s assets declaration case) held:-
1. When one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result
gains superiority or influence over the first;
2. When one person assumes control and responsibility over another;
3. When one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling
within the scope of the relationship; or
4. When there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as
involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and a
customer
07/11/16 23

24. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
Some examples of Fiduciary Relationship –
 Trustee & beneficiary (Section 88, Indian Trusts Act, 1882)
 Legal guardians & wards
 Lawyer & Client, CA and Client
 Executors and administrators & legatees and heirs
 Board of directors & company
 Liquidator & company.
 Receivers, trustees in bankruptcy and assignees in insolvency & creditors.
 Doctor & Patient
 Parent & Child
Held in this case that CJI doesn’t hold the asset declarations of
brother judges in a fiduciary relationship.
24

25. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
Some Case Laws with respect to above provisions:-
 Section 8(1)(a)-Exemption where disclosure will prejudice the
sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific interest of the
state, of the state or such disclosure might lead to incitement of
offence.
Under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, Governor enjoys an immunity and in
view of such immunity, no order can be passed under the RTI Act, requiring the
Governor to disclose any information under the RTI Act, with regard to his
sovereign functions only. (Public Information Officer v. Shri. Manohar
Parrikar Leader of Opposition, Goa State Assembly)
07/11/16 25

26. Section 8 (1) (d) – exemption from disclosure of ‘information including
commercial
confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which
would harm the
competitive position of a third party.
 The List of customers of HPCL was held not to be in the nature of
nature of commercial confidence or trade secrets or intellectual property or was
held in a fiduciary relationship.
(Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs The Central Information
Commission)
 Question papers, instructions regarding evaluation and solutions to questions (or
model answers) which are furnished to examiners and moderators in connection
with evaluation of answer scripts, are literary works which are products of human
intellect and therefore subject to a copyright. (The Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors(A.I.R 2011 SC 3336).
07/11/16 26
The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information

27. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
Section 8(1)(e)- Information which is exempts from disclosure of
information available to
a person in his “fiduciary relationship”.
 Examining body, (CBSE) was held to be not in a fiduciary
relationship with the examinee, and hence, answer books were permitted for
inspection.(Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.Vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay and Ors.2011 (9) SC 212).
 Exemption available to the Recipient only and not to the author
• Asset Declaration Case- CJI , Not a Fiduciary. Held:-
o Judges of the Supreme Court hold independent office; CJI is Public
Authority
o Declarations of assets are not furnished to the CJI in a private relationship but in
discharge of the constitutional obligation to maintain higher standards and
probity of judicial life and are in the larger public interest
o Section 8(e) does not cover asset declarations made by Judges of
the Supreme Court and held by the CJI
( Secretary General, Supreme Court of IndiaVs.Subhash Chandra Agarwal)
07/11/16 27

28. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
Section 8(1)(j)- information which relates to personal information the disclosure
of which has no public activity or interest, or which would cause a breach of privacy
of the individual.
 Institution engaged in public activity not covered under section 8(1)
(j) (For example -Salary of Government School or government aided teachers,
(Surinder Singh v. State of U.P). Public purpose is the touchstone which
determines whether an information is personal or not.” (Shri G.R. Rawal v.
Director 67 General of Income Tax)
 Amount of Income Tax paid by an individual is ‘personal information’
(Naresh Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta)
– Information is in obligation to Income Tax Act and there is no fiduciary
relationship between assessee and income tax authorities.
– Details disclosed in income tax returns are "personal
information" which stand exempted from disclosure unless involves a
larger public interest
– The act of filing returns NOT a public activity, just compliance to the
Act.
 Information pertaining to medical bills of the judges held to be
covered under this exception as such information amounts to invasion
of privacy( Subhash Chandra Aggrawal Case –SC )07/11/16 28

29. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
• Do Public Servants have a Fundamental RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
• Is it different from that of a private individual?
• Any Information that relates to them is of ‘public interest’ and hence
should be disclosed?
• The onus is on the individual seeking information asserting public
interest?
(The Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India
Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Anr. )
07/11/16 29

30. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
 Sec.8(2) lays down the ‘harm test’, has an overriding effect on all the exemption clauses
and also provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 wherein a PA may allow access to
information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the
protected interests.
 Section 8(3) provides an overriding clause relating to any matter which took place 20
years prior to the request except for exemptions under clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section .
 Section 9 exempts information which would involve an infringement of a copyright subsisting in a
person other than the State. In Shri Sudhir Vohra v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, held that
structural drawings, engineering calculations, soil tests and other details of DMRC though are copyrighted material
of DMRC are not exempted under Section 9 as DMRC was declared a State.
.
07/11/16 30

31. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Exceptions for disclosure of
information
 Section 11 and Third Party Information- Principle of Natural Justice to
be followed.
(Relevant case law -Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central
Public Information Officer)
 Section 2 (n) – ‘third party’ means a person other than the citizen making a
request for information and includes a public authority
 When information seeker files an application which relates to or has been supplied by
third party, the PIO has to examine whether the said information is treated as
confidential or can be treated as confidential by the third party, then section
11 applies.
Section 11(1), (2), (3) and (4) - procedural provisions which have to be complied with
by the PIO/Appellant authority, when they are required to give a finding
whether information relating to third party should be disclosed or not
disclosed (after balancing conflicting interests)
 Section 11 (1) –right to be heard and right to notice to be given to the
07/11/16 31

32. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Right to Appeals, Sanctions,
Protections
Appeals:
1.Sec.19 states that if any person who doesn’t receive information within the
time specified in sub-section(1) or clause (a) of sub-section(3) of Section.7, or is
aggrieved by a decision of the CPIO or the SPIO, may within 30 days prefer an
appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the CPIO or the SPIO.
2.A second appeal lies within 90 days against the decision under sub-section(1)
with the CIC/SIC
3.Sec.19(7) states that the decision of the CIC/SICs as the case may be shall
be binding.
4.Sec.19(8) confers wide powers with the CIC/SICs to direct the public
authorities to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance of
this Act.
07/11/16 32

33. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Right to Appeals, Sanctions,
Protections
Sanctions:
5. Sec.19(8) along with Sec.20 empowers the CIC and the SIC to impose penalties
on the CPIO or the SPIO for
a. Refusing to accept an application.
b. Not furnishing the information within stipulated time
c. Malafidely denying the request for information
d. Knowingly giving incorrect or misleading information which was the subject of
request.
Protection:
6. Sec.21 – Actions taken in Good faith are protected from prosecution.
7.Section 24 – Exempts 25 intelligence and security organizations of Central Gov in
Second Schedule.
 Exemption not applicable to Corruption and Human Rights Violations.
07/11/16 33

34. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Challenges
• Capacity building at grass root levels – There is lack of
– Infrastructure
– Adequately trained manpower at all levels
– Uniform structure of information record management and maintenance.
– Efficient systems of voluntary disclosure
• Expectation of ‘Due Diligence’
• Misuse by RTI applicants – to pursue vexatious personal
interest
– Using it as a tool for avenging grudge or to harass spouses, colleagues, superiors,
investigating officers.
– Clogging information channels by frivolous, repetitive applications
• Misuse by the PIO/FAA
– Redundant answers – ‘not information’, ‘file missing’, ‘more payment’ etc.
– Mundane quoting of exemption clauses.
• Compliance of CIC/SIC orders: More teeth needs to be
provided-ORDER IMPLEMEMTTION
07/11/16 34

35. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Road Ahead
• ‘Due Diligence’ to be waived off to underprivileged sections.
• Uniform SOPs connecting the information seeker, holder,
provider and appellate authorities.
• Effective use of ICT in the form of Self Help RTI kiosks,
Mobile Apps, RTI through SMS, E-Payment Facility,
Information tracking and delivery.
• Duty to publish under S.4(2) to be made an obligation
than an endeavour.
• Recruiting efficient manpower and training them well –
Indian Information Service.
• An amendment to give more powers to CIC/SICs.
• RTI should be given Constitutional protection. Sweden,
Serbia and Slovania have so.
07/11/16 35

36. The Right to Information Act, 2005: Conclusions:
1. RTI Act, 2005 a progressive enactment. Ranked 4th
among RTI Acts.
2. An effective weapon in the hands of the common man and the
whistleblowers for
1. Ensuring transparency,
2. Bringing down corruption,
3. Effectuating good governance,
4. For protecting civil liberties,
5. Effective implementation of welfare schemes of the Government
and
6. A powerful tool in making the people participate in the
democratic process of the country.
3. A lot authorities have been brought under the ambit of Public Authorities.
4. There are gaping holes. Not difficult to overcome through widespread
consultations.
07/11/16 36

37. The Right to Information Act,
2005: Conclusions:
Some Achievements of RTI in the last 10 years
• Ministers’ and Bureaucrats’ Foreign Trips
• Ministers’ Assets
• Judges’ Assets
• Bureaucrats’ Assets
• Exam Results One of the standout achievements was the
making public of previous year question papers, marksheets,
answer keys etc., of examinations conducted by public service commissions
and examination bodies like UPSC, IIT, UGC; etc
• Scams Exposed- Several scams like the Adarsh Housing scam, 2G
scam, Coal Blocks allocation scam, Commonwealth Games
scam were unearthed using the RTI Act in the past few years
07/11/16 37

38. Bibliography:
1. Toby Mendel, Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Survey,
Second Edition, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organisation, 2008. www.unesco.org/webworld/en/foi
2. Guide on Right to Information Act, 2005, Government of India.
http://rti.gov.in/RTICorner/Guideonrti.pdf
3. Analyzing the Right to Information Act in India
4. http://www.cuts-international.org/cart/pdf/Analysing_the_Right_to_Information
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_laws_by_country
6. Decisions of the Full Bench of the CIC available at
http://rti.india.gov.in/decision_fbench.php
7. RTI Act, 2005 Bare Act.
07/11/16 38

39. THANK YOU
07/11/16 39