Right to Information 2
-
Upload
akash-paul-lakra -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Right to Information 2
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
1/41
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY JODHPUR
Right to Information
A study of RTI and its importance
Submitted by Submitted to
Akash Paul Lakra Dr. V. S. Shastri
Roll 766 BBA hons. LLB hons. Faculty, Legal Methods and Research
Semester 1
9/1/2010
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
2/41
1 Right to Information
Table of Contents
S.no. Important Headers Page No.
0 Acknowledgement 21 Abstract 3
2 List of abbreviations 4
3 List of Case Citations 5
4 Acts Mentioned 6
5 List of Cases analyzed 7
6 Why Right to information!Question arises is why did the FOI fail?
8
7 The Emergence
8 What is the right to information? (Short summary)
9 Introduction to the Right to Information
10 Significance of Right to Information Act 2005
11 Explanation of the Law
12 Cases Analyses
13 Conclusion
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
3/41
2 Right to Information
Acknowledgement
I take this opportunity to first of all thank our Legal Methods and Research teacher, Dr.
V.S.Shasthri who gave me this fascinating Project topic. I would also like to thank him for the
patience he showed with me, the project gave me a chance to strength my researching
skills. He furthermore streamlined my efforts in a particular area and topic which is most
relevant to our study as students of law.
Moreover I would like to thank my seniors who helped me in selecting relevant books in this
area. I would also like to thank my friends who helped me when I was stressed and under
pressure.
- Akash Paul Lakra
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
4/41
3 Right to Information
Abstract
Right to Information Act 2005 authorizes or what you would say allow citizens of India
timely response to their requests for government information. This law enacted by the
Parliament of India was "to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to
information for citizens.And hence came into force on 12th
October 2005.
This Project answers the following questions
1. Why Freedom to Information Act of 2002 failed?2. How did Right to Information emerge from Freedom of Information?3. Very Brief Summary of Right to information.4. Introduction to Right to information.5. What is the significance of Right to Information6. A seven page explanation of Right to information
This Project also has six case analyses. All the cases are from the supreme court of India.
Each case has:-
1. Brief Facts2. Judgment3. Ratio4. Test of Confirmation
Conclusion of the research work can be found at the end of the Case analyses
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
5/41
4 Right to Information
List of abbreviations
S.no Abbreviation Meanings
1 FOI Freedom of Information Act, 2002
2 RTI Right to Information Act, 2005
3 MP Member of Parliament
4 MLA Member of Legislative Assembly
5 SCC Supreme Court Cases
6 AIR All India Reporter
7 SC Supreme Court
8 SCR Supreme Court Reports
9 NAC National Advisory Council
10 CHRC Canadian Human Rights Commission
11 CMP Common Minimum Program
12 NCPRI National Campaign for Peoples Right to information
13 AIHC All India High Court Cases
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
6/41
5 Right to Information
Case Citations
S.no Case Cited on Page
no.
1 Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 11
2 Peoples Union For Civil Liberties v. Union Of India 11,16,19
3 Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms 11,12,13,19
4 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain 11,17
5 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras 11
6 Peoples Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India 12
7 Dinesh Trivedi. M. P v. Union of India 12
8 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 12
9 Vineet Narain v. Union of India. 13
10 R.P Ltd v. Indian &Indian Express, v. Union of India
15
11 S.P. Anand v. Union of India 15
12 Essar Oil Ltd v. Halar Utkarsh Samithi 15
13 Hanif Naji Gawda v. State of Karnataka 15
14Ozar Hussain v. Union of India
1515 Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India 16
16 Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broad Casting v. Cricket Association, Bengal 16
17 Prabha v. State 16
18 Gupta v. President 17,18,19
19 D.V National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children 18
20 Sathyanarayana Brothers (P) Ltd. T.N Water Supply & Drainage Board (2004) 5 SCC314.
18
21 F.A Picture International v. Central Board of Film Certification 21
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
7/41
6 Right to Information
Acts Mentioned
S.no Act Page no.
1 A.P Right to information Bill, 2001, Section (i). 10
2 Goa right to Information Act, 1997, Section 2(d). 10
3 Rajasthan Right to information Act, 2000, Section 2(vi) 10
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
8/41
7 Right to Information
List of Case Analyzed
S.no Case Citation Pg.no
1 Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. MANU/SC/0287/2010 22
2 Research Foundation for Science Technology andNatural Resource Policy v. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors.
MANU/SC/7894/2007 26
3 Kunga Nima Lepcha and Ors. V. State of Sikkimand Ors.
MANU/SC/0193/2010 29
4 Rajinder Kishan Gupta and Anr.Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
MANU/SC/0622/2010 31
5 Dr. M.S. Patil Vs. Gulbarga University and Ors. MANU/SC/0646/2010 34
6 Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. AdministrativeOfficer and Ors.
MANU/SC/0646/2010 37
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
9/41
8 Right to Information
Why Right to information!
Freedom of Information Act 2002 a failed law of the government led to the creation of the
Right to Information Act 2005.
Question arises is why did the FOI fail?
FOI was based upon the Freedom of Information Bill 2000 and was introduced and then
passed in December 2002. It received Presidential asset on 2003, January. Unfortunately, a
date for the Bill coming into force was never notified, such that it never actually came into
operation.
FOI was severely criticised for permitting too many exemptions, not only under the standardgrounds of national security and sovereignty, but also for requests that would involve
"disproportionate diversion of the resources of a public authority". There was no upper limit
on the charges that could be levied. There were no penalties for not complying with a request
for information. The FOI Act, consequently, never came into effective force.
Hence the government thus there by replaced FOI with another law, and that is the Right to
Information Act 2005.
But the question then arises is why Right to Information?
RTI makes the Government more accountable and responsible to Citizens of India as it
empowers them to seek information from public authority. Thus the RTI enables the
Government and functionaries to be under the surveillance of the citizens of India.
RTI has been a very vital ingredient to usher in transparency and reduce corruption.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
10/41
9 Right to Information
The Emergence
Change of Name
The Freedom in the previous Act became Right in the New Act. Freedom signifies the
citizens will to seek any information and right means the corresponding duty on the state
to disclose whether a person asked the information or not. Though some sections provide for
duty to disclose there is, in effect, no change in the character of right or freedom that offered
by the statute under both the enactments.
In order to ensure greater and more effective access to information, the Government resolved
that the FOI act enacted by the Parliament needs to be made:-
More progressive Participatory Meaningful
The National Advisory Council deliberated on the certain important changes to be
incorporated in the existing Act to ensure smoother and greater access to information. The
Government examined the suggestions made by the National Advisory Council and others
and decided to make a number of changes in the law.
The important changes proposed to be incorporated, inter alia, include:-
Establishment of an appellate machinery with investigating powers to reviewdecisions of Public Information Officers;
Penal provisions for failure to provide information as per law; Provisions to ensure maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions, consistent with
constitutional provisions, and effective mechanism for access to information and
disclosure by the authorities etc.
In view of significant changes proposed in the existing Act, the Government also decided to
real Freedom of Information Act, 2002. The proposed legislation will provide an effective
framework for effectuating right to information recognised under Article 19 of the
Constitution of India.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
11/41
10 Right to Information
What is the right to information? (Short summary)
Right to information means the right to access to information from any public authority by
means of inspection taking of extracts and notes; obtaining certified copies of any records of
such public authority, diskettes, floppies, photocopies or in any other electronic mode or
through print outs where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.1
Right to information means the right of access to information and includes the inspection of
works, documents, records, or taking notes and extracts and obtaining certified copies of
documents or records or taking samples of material.2
Right to information means the right to access to information relating to the affairs of the
state or public bodies by means of:-
Obtaining Certified Copies of documents or records, or inspection of accessible records and taking notes and extracts or inspection of public works; or Taking of samples of material from public works.3
1
See: A.P Right to information Bill, 2001, Section (i).2See: Goa right to Information Act, 1997, Section 2(d).
3See: Rajasthan Right to information Act, 2000, Section 2(vi)
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
12/41
11 Right to Information
Introduction to the Right to Information
The right to information is an aspect of the freedom of speech and expression contained in
Article 19(1) (a). The right of information thus, certainly, is a fundamental right.4
The court
also discussed several earlier cases on the question of privilege although this was wholly
unnecessary for the purpose of the case Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 could
have been upheld on the touch stone of Article 19(2) itself.5
The people of the Country have a
right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by the public
functionaries. MPs or MLAs are undoubtedly public functionaries. Public education is
essential for functioning of the process of popular government and to assist the discovery of
truth and strengthening the capacity of an individual in participating in the decision making
process. The decision making process of a voter include his right to know about public
functionaries who are required to be elected by him.6
The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though is not
absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions
which can, at any rate, have no repercussions on public security.
In a responsible Government like ours, where all the 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.
The people are eligible to know the basics of every public transaction in all its bearing.7
The
freedom lays in the base of all democratic governments, for without free political discussion,
no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the processes of popular
government, is possible. A freedom of such amplitude might involve risks of abuse. But it is
better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their thriving growth, than by cropping them
away, to injure the dynamism of those yielding the proper fruits.8
4Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) 2 SCC 426, 494: AIR 2004 SC 1442.
5Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476, 494: AIR 2004 SC 1442.
6Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, 314: AIR 2002 SC 2112.
7
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428, 453: AIR 1975 SC 865.8Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 : 1950 SCR 594, see also the observations of Lord
Simons of Glaisdale in AttorneyGeneral v. Times Newspapers Ltd., (1973) 1 ALL ER 54.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
13/41
12 Right to Information
The Supreme Court struck down Section 33B of the representation of the People Act, 1951.
This section was added to nullify an earlier decision of the Supreme Court9
which directed
that candidates must disclose their criminal track record as well as the list of their assets and
liabilities. The section was held to be unconstitutional. The Court then held that a well
informed voter is the foundation of democratic structure and disclosure of such information
to the voter is a one facet of the fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a). Section 32B could
not be justified or saved under Article 19(2)10
.
In a Landmark ruling, the Supreme Court observed that even if there were no guidelines laid
down by the Election Commission it would be pertinent for candidates contesting an election
to file information with the Commission of their past antecedents.11
The court observed that if
the right to telecast and right to view sport games and the right to impart such information is
considered to be part and parcel of Article 19(1) (a), a fortiori a citizen/ voterthe little man-
has the fundamental right to know about the antecedents of his candidates. Democracy cannot
survive without free and fair elections, without free and fairly informed voters. Votes cast by
uninformed voters in favour of X or Y candidate would be meaningless. One sided
information, disinformation, misinformation and non information, all equally create an
uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Therefore informed voters or a voter
having onesided information only is bound to affect the democracy seriously. Freedom ofspeech and expression includes the right to impart and receive information which includes the
freedom to hold opinions. If entertainment is implied in freedom of speech and expression
and there is no reason to hold that freedom of speech and expression would not cover the
right to get material information with regard to a candidate who is contesting an election for a
post which is of utmost importance in a democracy.12
Democracy expects openness and
openness is a concomitant of a free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.13
After
extensively commenting on the right of the voters to know of the antecedents of the
contesting candidates, the Supreme Court relying on its earlier practice in Vishakas case14
9Supra Note 6.
10Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, 434, 438: AIR 2003 SC 2363.
11Supra Note 6.
12
Supra Note 6.13Dinesh Trivedi. M. P v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306,314: (1997) 4 JT 237.
14Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1997) SC 3011: (1997) 6 SCC 231.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
14/41
13 Right to Information
and in Vineet Narain Case,15
laid down guidelines to be followed till such time as the
Election commission framed the same.16
15Vineet Narain v. Union of India. (1998) 1 SCC 226: AIR 1998 SC 889.
16Supra 6.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
15/41
14 Right to Information
Significance of Right to Information Act 2005
Indias new Right to Information Act has some Radical provisions, based on amendments
proposed by the National Advisory Council (NAC), CHRC and other agencies, to ensure
unprecedented transparency in sections of the government like intelligence and security
agencies.
Under the new provisions of the revamped Act, these agencies (thus far insulated from the
publics right to to know) will have to disclose information related to complaints about
human rights violation or corruption. The law envisaged the independent Information
Commissioner to enforce the Law, and monetary penalties for official who do not comply
while the final bill deleted the provisions to impose up to a fiveyear prison term.
Like the earlier law, while information on 19 intelligence and security organisations(such as
the intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis wing, Border Security force, Central Reserve
Police force, National Security Guards, Assam Rifle) will not come under the Acts purview,
information of Human rights and allegations of corruption by these organizations will not be
excluded.
The Changes in the new law:
The president of India will appoint a Chief Information officer and Governors ofState the State Implement the Act. They will be autonomous functionaries with five
year terms.
The chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner will haveto publish an annual report on the implementation of the Act. The annual report will
be tabled below the Parliament/ State legislatures.
A new section on penalties for varying penalties or lines of ( up to Rs. 5000) withoutimprisonment( the draft proposed up to five years) as punishment for mala fide,
refusal to give information, destroying information knowingly giving out wrong
information to an RTI applicant.
Government bodies have to publish details of staff payments. While the newly elected United Progressive Alliance Governments Common
Minimum Programme(CMP) had promised a stronger disclosure law, what helped
push the process through was the fact that two members of the NAC are leadcampaigners of the National Campaign for Peoples Right to information(NCPRI)2
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
16/41
15 Right to Information
Explanation of the Law
1. The right to know relating to public affairs has been held up as a basic right,17 underthe constitution of India.
2. The right to receive information may be deduced as a counterpart of the right toimpart information, which is an ingredient of the freedom of expression guaranteed by
Art. 19(1) (a).18
IT was held in that case that people at large have a right to know in
order to be able to take part in a participatory development of the industrial life in the
broader horizon of the right to live. In this age, in our land, under Art. 21 of our
Constitution, that right has reacted a new dimension and urgency. That right puts
better responsibility upon those who take upon themselves the responsibility to
inform.
A person campaigning for a public interest drive has to keep in mind always national
security and national interest since it is above the right to information of citizens.19
3. It has been suggested20 that the right to know may also be derived from Art. 21 underwhich the right to live of a citizen in a free country has been placed on a broader
perspective.
Citizens who have been made responsible to protect environment have a right to
know. There is a strong link between Article 21 and the right to know particularly
where secret government decision may affect health, life and livelihood.21
4. The right to know puts greater responsibility to protect environment upon those whotake upon themselves the responsibility to inform.22
5. The concept of open government is the direct emanation from the right to knowimplicit in the right to freedom of speech and expression. Any limitation however
would be justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest requires.23
Right to freedom speech and expression includes freedom of seek receive and impartinformation of ideas. Freedom to hold opinions, ideas etc. is part of freedom of speech
and expression.24
The fundamental right to receive information which springs forth
17R.P Ltd v. Indian Express, AIR 1989 SC 190: (1988) 4 SCC 592 ( Para 35); Indian Express, v. Union of India, AIR
1986 SC 515: (1985) 1 SCC 641 (Para 66)18
Supra 1719
S.P. Anand v. Union of India, AIR 2000 MP 47.20
Supra 1721
Essar Oil Ltd v. Halar Utkarsh Samithi, (2004) 2 SCC 392: AIR 2004 SC 1834.22
Supra 1723Hanif Naji Gawda v. State of Karnataka, 1997 AIHC 78 (Kant).
24Ozar Hussain v. Union of India AIR 2003 Del 103.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
17/41
16 Right to Information
from the right to speech and expression in Art 19 (1) (a).25
At the same time no one
can claim the right by using or employing public property. The right can be claimed
only where the statute permits to use public property as airwaves constitute public
property.26
6. The right to acquire information includes the right of access to sources of information.Hence a journalist cannot be denied an opportunity to interview a prisoner provided:
a) The prisoner is willing to be interviewed,b) The regulation contained in the Jail Manual are complied with27
7. But, as in the USA, this right like any other fundamental right is not absolute. Thusreasonable restrictions may be imposed upon the citizens right to compel disclosure
of information if it affects national security, sovereignty or security;28
friendly
relations with foreign state or if its disclosure would constitute incitement to an
offence, defamation or contempt of Court or might interfere with the investigation of
criminal cases so as to affect the maintenance of public order.29
8. Right to information or a right to know is on the face the right to speech andexpression and hence a fundamental right. There exists a relationship between a right
to know and freedom of speech. But the right to speech and publish does not carry
with it an unrestricted right to gather information. A reasonable restriction is always
permissible on the said right in the interest of security of State. Reasonable
restrictions are also permitted in the right in the interest of security of State.
Reasonable restriction is always permissible on the said right in the interest of
security of State. Reasonable restriction are also permissible in the right to
information on following matters:
a) International Relationb) National Security (including defence) and Public safetyc) Investigation detection and prevention of Crime;d) Internal deliberations of the government;e) Information received in confidence from source outside the government;f) Information, which if disclosed would violate the privacy of the individual.
25Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India AIR . 2001 Del 126.
26Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broad Casting v. Cricket Association, BengalAIR 1995 SC 1236 (1995)
2 SCC 16127
Prabha v. State, AIR 1982 Raj 2 (Para 2)28Supra 5
29See: Under CL. (2) of 19
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
18/41
17 Right to Information
g) Information of economic nature (including rare trade secrets) which if disclosed
would confer an unfair advantage on some person or concern or subject some person
or government to an unfair disadvantage;
h) Information which is subject to a claim of legal professional privilege i.e.:
Communication between legal adviser and the client between physician and the
patient;
i) Information about scientific discoveries. The provision under the Atomic Act 1962
which prohibits for giving information was held to be reasonable restriction
It was held therein that freedom of speech and expression have been advisedly set out
in broad terms leaving scope for their expression and adaptation through
interpretation, to the changing needs and evolving notions of a free society.
At the same time, in balancing the reasonableness of the restrictions so imposed in the
public interest, the court must not forget that it is also in the public interest that in a
democracy, the people must be possessed of information relating to public affairs,
which right is guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a), of the Indian Court. In other words of
Mathew. J.30
In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the 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 the
way, by their public functionaries.. The right to know.. Though not absolute, is a
factor which should make one wary when secrecy is claimed for transactions which
can, at any rate have no repercussion on public security.31
It was further observed To cover with veil secrecy, the common routine business is
not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. It is
generally desired for the purpose of parties and politics or personal self-interest or
bureaucratic routine. The responsibility of officials to explain and to justify their acts
is the chief safe guard against oppression and corruption. This was amplified by
Bhagwati, J., in a seven Judge Bench in the Judges case.32
The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from to know which
seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Art
19(1) (a). Therefore, disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of
30
Supra 731Gupta v. President, AIR 1982 SC 149 : 1989 SC 149 : 1981 Supp SCC 87( Para 66, 81) 7 judges
32Supra 31
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
19/41
18 Right to Information
government must be the rule and secrecy an exception justified only where the
strictest requirement of public interest so demands. The approach of the Court must
be to attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with the
requirement of public interest so demands . 33
Reliance was also placed by the learned Judge on the observation of Lord Simon of
Glaisdale in D.V. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children,34
The public interest that no innocent man should be convicted of crime is so powerful
that it outweighs the general public interest which might be injured by the disclosure
of the document. Learned Judge held, It would then seem clear that in weighing the
process which the court has to perform in order to decide which of the two aspects of
public interest should be given predominance, the character of the proceeding the
issues arising in it and the likely effect of the document on the determination of the
issues must form vital consideration, for they would affect the relative weight to be
given to each of the respective aspects of public interest which when placed in the
scales.
A note prepared by a Chief Engineer in official discharge of his duties, which
contains relevant facts and circumstances of the case cannot be prevented of being a
document dealing with affairs of State: i.e., On the ground of confidentiality. It was
observed more stress on transparency of dealings.35
9. People of the country have a right to know to have everything that is done in a publicway by the public functionaries. The M.P. and M.L.A. are undoubtedly public
functionaries. Public education is essential for functioning of the process of popular
government and to assist that discovery of truth and strengthening the capacity of an
individual in participating in the decision making process. The decision making
process of a voter would include his right to know about the antecedents of public
functionaries who are required to impart and receive information which includes
freedom to hold opinion. Entertainment is implied in freedom of speech and
expression would not be the right to get material information with regard to a
candidate who is contesting the election for a post which is utmost important with
democracy.
33
Supra 31.34D.V National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, (1977) 2 WLR 207 : (1977) 1 All ER 589 (HL)
35Sathyanarayana Brothers (P) Ltd. T.N Water Supply & Drainage Board (2004) 5 SCC 314.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
20/41
19 Right to Information
10.In a democracy the electoral process has a strategic role. Every voter of the countrywould have the basic right to know full particulars of candidates who is to represent
him in Parliament. The right to get information in a democracy is recognized all
throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy.. Voters
right to know the antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contenting
election is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy.36
11. When any claim of privilege is made by the State in respect of any document thequestion whether the document belongs to the privileged class has first to be decided
by court. The court cannot hold an enquiry into the possible to public interest which
may result from the disclosure of the document in question (first). The claim of
immunity and privilege has to be based on public interest.37
. While considering the
claim of privilege, the question of national importance vis--vis administration of
justice should be the criteria for determining the claim.38
In The same case, RAJ CJ
observed when public interest outweighs the latter ( i.e national interest) the
evidence cannot be admitted It is in public interest that confidentiality shall be
safe guarded. The reason is that such documents became subject to privilege. It is a
consideration to bear in mind. It is not that the contents contain material which it
should be damaging to the national interest to divulge, but is rather that the
documents would be of a class which demand protection.
12.The Right to Information Act (22 of 2005) 2005 has been passed by Parliament whichcame into effect from 13/10/2005. Section 3 of the Act provides that subject to the
unless the competent authority provision of the Act, all citizens have a right to
information which relates to: (1) Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially
affect sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, Strategic scientific or economic
interests of the State, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence
(2) Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any Court of
Law or tribunal or the disclosure of which would cause of breach of privilege of
Parliament or the State Legislature.(4) Information including commercial confidences,
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.(5) Information
36
Supra 637Supra 5
38Supra 31
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
21/41
20 Right to Information
available to a person in his fiduciary relationship unless disclosure of such
information (6) Information received in confidence from foreign government (7)
Information, the disclosures of which would endanger the life or physical safety of
any person or identity the source of information or assistance given in confidence for
the law enforcement or security purpose. (8) Information which would impede the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. (9) Cabinet
papers including records of deliberation of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries or
other Officers. (Provided that the decision of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof
the and the material on the basis of which the decision were taken shall be made
public after the decision was taken and the matter is complete or over). Provided
further that those matters which come under the exemption in this section shall be not
be disclosed. (10) Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals unless the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate
Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the
disclosure of such information.
13.Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to Parliament or a Statelegislature, shall not be denied to any person.
14.Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act 1923(19 of 1923) nor any of theexemption permissible in accordance with sub section (1), a public authority may
allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the
protected interests.
15.Subject to the provision of clauses (a) (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any informationrelating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place occurred or
happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6
shall be provided to any person making a request under that section.
16.Provided that where any question as to arises as to the date from which the said periodtwenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be
final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in the Act.
17.Section 24 provides that the Act will have no application to the intelligence andsecurity organization specified in the Act (i.e Second Schedule) being organisation to
that Government. Second Schedule to that Act provides 18 organizations to which the
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
22/41
21 Right to Information
act has no application. Even in regard to these organizations, in the case of violation
of human rights and corruption, the Act is made applicable.
18.Section 19 provides for an appeal against the decision or non decision by a personaggrieved to the next officer higher in rank to Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer as the case may be, which may be preferred within
thirty days.
19.The Purpose of the Act is to clean up public life. The act though does not confer anynew right on citizen it only underscores their right to know how the governments,
meant to server them, are functioning. It lays down the process of how and where to
apply for information. The Act provides for penalty on the officer, in willing to
provide information and also for furnishing wrong information.
20.Nothing can be as destructive of the social fabric in a democratic society that theattempt of those who govern to prevent access to information to those whose security
depends upon the preservation of order. An environment in which human rights are
respected is nurtured by vibrant flow information and avenues for critical assessment
of governance.39
39F.A Picture International v. Central Board of Film Certification, AIR 2005 Bo, 145/
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
23/41
22 Right to Information
Case Analysis
Case 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 3127 of 2008
Decided On: 22.04.2010
Appellants: Ravinder Kumar
vs.
Respondent: State of Haryana and Ors.40
Facts
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana,whereby Writ Petition No. 1061 of 2007 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and
the appellant's claim for appointment as a Constable in the Haryana Police Department
turned down.2. The High Court has taken the view that since the marks scored by the appellant were
less than the marks awarded, to the last candidate in the general category, he could
make no grievance against his non-selection in that category.
3. If that were done, the appellant could be appointed against one of the said vacancies.4. A selection process to fill up 100 available posts of Constables in Haryana Police in the
District of Sirsa, State of Haryana was undertaken in which the appellant was also a
candidate for appointment against one of the vacancies in the reserved category of
ESM/BC (B) for ex-servicemen and their dependents. The appellant was put through
physical efficiency and other tests and eventually placed at Sr. No. 3 in the
ESM/BC(B) category. An appointment order was also issued in his favor pursuant
whereto he joined the Police Department on 17th
August 2001 and was allotted
Constabulary No. 2/873 in the 2nd
Battalion of the Haryana Armed Force.
5. One, Naresh Kumar who had also applied for selection in ESM/BC(B) category andwhose name did not figure in the select list filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13130 of 2001
40MANU/SC/0287/2010
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
24/41
23 Right to Information
in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the appointment of the appellant
mainly on the ground that the said petitioner had a preferential right to an appointment
in the ESM/BC (B) category on account of his being an ex-serviceman in comparison
to the appellant who being a dependent of an ex-serviceman would stand a chance only
if no ex-serviceman was available for appointment.
6. The appellant had in the meantime completed the Basic Training Course of ninemonths duration, passed out in May 2002 and started discharging the duties attached to
the post to which he was appointed.
7. The High Court, all the same, allowed the writ petition filed by Naresh Kumar and byits order dated 10
thJuly 2002 quashed the appointment of the appellant with a direction
that the claim of ex-servicemen candidates would have priority over those who are
dependents of such ex-servicemen.
8. Consequent upon the said direction, the services of the appellant were terminated interms of an order dated 31
stDecember 2002, the correctness whereof was questioned
by the appellant in CWP No. 16287 of 2003. The said petition was eventually
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file a review petition against the
order of the High Court in CWP No. 13130 of 2001.
9. A review petition was accordingly filed by the appellant which was disposed of by theHigh Court by an order dated 10th March 2006 directing the respondents to reconsider
the case of the appellant in the general category. Order dated 10th
July 2002 passed by
the High Court in CWP No. 13130 of 2001 was to that extent modified.
10.It was in compliance with the above direction that the Superintendent of Police, Sirsapassed an order on 26
thMay 2006 declining an appointment to the appellant as a
Constable. The order stated that out of eight candidates in BC (B) category the last
candidate selected for appointment had scored 27 marks as against 26 marks awarded
to the appellant. The order further stated that out of 45 candidates selected in the
General category the last candidate selected for appointment had scored 27 marks.
11.The appellant's case is that the order passed by the Superintendent of Police did notdisclose the marks obtained by BC(B) category candidates selected against the eight
posts reserved in that category. An application seeking the requisite information and
copies of the select list was accordingly filed under the Right to Information Act, but
was declined by the State Information Commission on the ground that the Haryana
Armed Police was exempt from the purview of the RTI Act.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
25/41
24 Right to Information
12.When this appeal came up before this Court, Mr. Patwalia made a statement oninstructions that if the appellant was offered employment as a Constable in the Haryana
Police, District Sirsa even at this stage he will not claim back wages or seniority on the
basis of his selection and appointment.
Issues
1. Whether the denial of appointment to the appellant is discriminatory, whollyunjustified and arbitrary.
2. Whether the appointment of the appellant could be justified only if the appellantfigured higher in the merit list than the last candidate in the General category.
Judgment
1. In the result, the Court allowed this appeal but only in part and to the extent that theappellant shall be appointed as a Constable in the Haryana Armed Police, Sirsa District
against any vacancy in the Ex-Servicemen (General Category) or ESM/BC (B)
category. If no vacancy in the said two categories is available the appellant shall be
appointed against any vacancy in the General category. The appointment shall for all
intents and purpose be a fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellant to any
back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on his earlier appointment. The order
passed by the High Court shall to the above extent, stand modified. No costs.
Raito Decidenti:
The appointment shall for all purposes be treated as a first appointment subject to the
condition that the competent authority shall be free to direct that the appellant shall undergothe training afresh or take a refresher course of such training if deemed fit
TEST OF CONFIRMATION:
The test of confirmation being applied in the present case is Wambaughs test of inversion.
The proposition isThe appointment shall for all purposes be treated as a first appointment
subject to the condition that the competent authority shall be free to direct that the appellantshall undergo the training afresh or take a refresher course of such training if deemed fit.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
26/41
25 Right to Information
Inserting the word no or not to change the meaning, we get-
The appointment shall for all purposes not be treated as a first appointment subject to the
condition that the competent authority shall be free to direct that the appellant shall undergo
the training afresh or take a refresher course of such training if deemed fit.
This new proposition completely changes the decision of the court because the major reason
of the judgement was that appointment shall for all intents and purpose be a fresh
appointment which would not entitle the appellant to any back wages, seniority or any other
benefit based on his earlier appointment So we come to the conclusion that the original
proposition is a valid precedent.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
27/41
26 Right to Information
CASE 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 11.09.2007
Appellants: Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resource Policy
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors.41
Facts
1. The "Blue Lady" ex SS Norway was a passenger liner built at Chantier De Atlantic, St.Nazaire, France in 1961.
2. It was a steam turbine driven vessel with a power and rating of 30,000 KW and 40,760HP respectively. Now the vessel is registered as a Barge under the flag of Bahamas
vide official number 710763.
3. The said ship was beached on 15/16.8.2006 off the Alang coast.4. The said ship was the passenger ship. It was constructed in 1952. It originated from
France. Its last origin was from Norway.
5. Alang is located on the west coast of Gujarat.6. It is the largest ship recycling yard in the world. It is one of the choicest ship-scrapping
destination for the ship owners around the world. There are 183 plots in all to carry out
the ship recycling activities.
7. Till today Alang has provided approximately 23 million tonnes of steel in the last 10years.
8. On 17.2.2006 when the above writ petition came up for hearing before this Court, wefound the controversy concerning ship-breaking a recurring controversy.
41MANU/SC/7894/2007
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
28/41
27 Right to Information
Issues
1. Whether permission should be granted for dismantling of X ship?2. Whether the contaminants ACM and PCB were non-qualified?
Judgement
1. This Court decided to lay down norms concerning infrastructure, capacity of Alang tohandle large volume of ship-breaking activity, safeguards to be provided to the
workers who were likely to face health- hazard on account of the incidence of ship-
breaking activity, the environmental impact assessment, regulation of the said activity
and strict regulation of the said activity.2. The Court accordingly grant permission to the said recycler to dismantle the said ship
"Blue Lady" as recommended by TEC.42
Ratio Decidenti
Dismantling of shipDismantling of ship can be allowed if it conforms to the standards
prescribed.
TEST OF CONFIRMATION:
The test of confirmation being applied in the present case is Wambaughs test of inversion.
The proposition isDismantling of shipDismantling of ship can be allowed if it conforms
to the standards prescribed
Inserting the word no or not to change the meaning, we get-
Dismantling of shipDismantling of ship cannotbe allowed if it conforms to the standards
prescribed.
1. 42(See: Para 12 of the TEC report dated 10.5.2007).
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
29/41
28 Right to Information
This new proposition completely changes the decision of the court because the major reason
of the judgement was that the ship could be dismantled and if the not is added then
dismantling of the ship wouldnt be allowed so.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
30/41
29 Right to Information
Case 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 25.03.2010
Appellants: Kunga Nima Lepcha and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Sikkim and Ors.43
Facts
1. The petitioners have levelled some allegations against the incumbent Chief Ministerof the State of Sikkim who was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 herein.
2. The crux of these allegations is that he has misused his public office to amass assetsdisproportionate to his known sources of income.
3. The petitioners have also alleged that he has misappropriated a large volume of publicmoney at the cost of the Government of India and the Government of Sikkim. The
relief sought by the petitioners is the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the allegations that have been
levelled against him.
Issues
1. Whether this Court could give directions for initiating an investigation under its writjurisdiction.
Judgement
The writ petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.
43MANU/SC/0193/2010
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
31/41
30 Right to Information
Ratio Decidenti
That function clearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to the investigating
agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them provide a sufficient
basis to launch an investigation.
TEST OF CONFIRMATION:
The test of confirmation being applied in the present case is Wambaughs test of inversion.
The proposition isThat function clearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to
the investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them
provide a sufficient basis to launch an investigation.
Inserting the word no or not to change the meaning, we get-
That function clearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is not up to the investigating
agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them provide a sufficient
basis to launch an investigation.
This new proposition completely changes the decision of the court because the major reason
of the judgement was that the writ petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs as
it is always open to the petitioners to approach the investigative agencies directly with the
incriminating materials and it is for the investigative agencies to decide on the further course
of action.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
32/41
31 Right to Information
CASE 4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 20.08.2010
Appellants: Rajinder Kishan Gupta and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors.44
Facts
1. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Act") was issued on 24.10.1961 to acquire vast chunk of
agricultural land for the planned development of Delhi including the lands of the
appellants herein situated in Village Mehrauli.
2. Notices were issued by the Collector under Section9of the Act on 26.04.1983, after alapse of almost 22 years from the date of Notification published under Section4(1)of
the Act.
3. Thereafter, objections and claims were filed by the appellants on 23.05.1983.Challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings, the appellants filed W.P. (C)
No. 1129 of 1983 and other members of the family also filed W.P. (C) No. 1131 of
1983 before the High Court.
4. The High Court, vide its order dated 25.05.1983, issued notice and directed tomaintain status quo as on that date.
5. However on 15.04.2004, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Against thedismissal of the writ petition, the appellants filed Review Petition No. 253 of 2004which was also dismissed by the High Court.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, on 19.11.2004, the appellants filed S.L.P. before thisCourt. On 24.01.2005, this Court, while issuing notice, granted status quo in respect
of possession of the land in question.
7. Thereafter, the above said S.L.P. was numbered as Civil Appeal Nos. 2418-2419 of2008. On 07.10.2008, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to
as "DMRC") filed applications in C.A. Nos. 2418-2419 of 2008 for impleadment and
44MANU/SC/0622/2010
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2140','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2140','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2146','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2146','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2146','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','73660','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','73660','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','73660','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','73660','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2146','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2140','1'); -
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
33/41
32 Right to Information
vacation/modification of order of status quo on the ground that land admeasuring
26,187 sq. mtr. Was required urgently for the construction of Chattarpur Metro
Station on Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS.
Issues
1. When the acquisition of the land is for DMRC and when there is a specific Act,namely, the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 whether the
authorities are justified in invoking the urgency provision in the Land Acquisition
Act by dispensing enquiry under Section5Aof the said Act?
2. When Government land adjoining to the land in question is available, whetheracquisition of a private land belonging to the appellants is justifiable?
Judgement
1. First Contention is rejected2. The Court was satisfied that the existence of public purpose and urgency in executing
the project before the Common Wealth Games, the adjoining land belonging to DDA
being forest land as per the notification and also of the fact that the respondents have
fully complied with the mandatory requirements including deposit of 80 per cent of
the compensation amount, The court with the stand taken by the respondents as well
as the conclusion of the High Court.
Ratio Decidenti
Land acquisition proceedings can be challenged only by the "person-interested" and none
else.
TEST OF CONFIRMATION:
The test of confirmation being applied in the present case is Wambaughs test of inversion.
The proposition is Land acquisition proceedings can be challenged only by the "person-
interested" and none else.
Inserting the word no or not to change the meaning, we get-
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2142','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2142','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2142','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','2142','1'); -
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
34/41
33 Right to Information
Land acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged only by the "person-interested" and
none else.
This new proposition completely changes the decision of the court because the major reason
of the judgement was that ,that the existence of public purpose and urgency in executing the
project before the Common Wealth Games, the adjoining land belonging to DDA being forest
land as per the notification and also of the fact that the respondents have fully complied with
the mandatory requirements including deposit of 80 per cent of the compensation amount,
The court with the stand taken by the respondents as well as the conclusion of the High Court
and if not is added his would all the proceedings to be challenged.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
35/41
34 Right to Information
CASE 5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 27.08.2010
Appellants: Dr. M.S. Patil
Vs.
Respondent: Gulbarga University and Ors.45
Facts
1. The appellant in this case was wrongly appointed to the post of Reader in theDepartment of Kannada in Gulbarga University.
2. On the basis of the interim orders passed by the Court and evidently helped by theconcerned authorities in the University he has been able to hold on to the post now for
over seventeen and a half years.
3. On March 30, 1992 the Gulbarga University, Gulbarga invited applications forappointment to different posts. One of the advertised posts was of Reader in Kannada.
4. In the remarks column of the notification, it was clearly shown as reserved for 'GroupB' category.
5. It needs to be stated here that a plain copy of the notification is enclosed with thepaper book as part of Annexure PI.
6. In the remarks column of the enclosed copy, the letters "GM" are shown against thepost in ques In order to show that it was incorrect Mr. L.R. Singh, counsel for
respondent No. 2 produced before us a Xerox copy of the notification from which it
clearly appears that the post was reserved for a candidate of 'Group B' category.n,
indicating that it was open to the general merit category.
7. Thus, confronted the lame plea on behalf of the appellant was that the mistake in thecopy (Annexure P1) was due to a typing error. We do not wish to proceed any further
in the matter except to say that a typing error materially affecting the facts of the case
to the benefit of the party committing the mistake has to be viewed with a good deal
of suspicion.
45MANU/SC/0646/2010
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
36/41
35 Right to Information
8. In response to the notification, 11 applications were made for the post in question.Only 3 applicants were from 'Group B' category and the rest were from different other
categories; the appellant is from the general merit category.
9. According to the appellant, the Board of Appointment did not find any of the 'GroupB' candidates eligible or suitable and on the basis of the interview held on June 5,
1992 he was selected for appointment.
10.His selection was approved by the Syndicate on February 1, 1993 and a notificationfor his appointment was issued on February 4, 1993 in pursuance of which he joined
the post.
Issues
1. Whether the appellant's appointment could be challenged?Judgment
1. Since the matter has become very old, it would not be reasonable for the University tofill up the post on the basis of the notification issued in the year 1993. The University
may, therefore, issue a fresh notification to fill up the post. The process of selection and
appointment on the basis of the fresh notification should be completed within six
months from today.
2. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 50.000.00 (rupeesfifty thousand only).
Ratio Decidenti
In service law there is no place for the concepts of adverse possession or holding over ,
and since the matter has become very old, it would not be reasonable.
TEST OF CONFIRMATION:
The test of confirmation being applied in the present case is Wambaughs test of inversion.
The proposition isIn service law there is no place for the concepts of adverse possession
or holding over , and since the matter has become very old, it would not be reasonable.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
37/41
36 Right to Information
Removing the word no or not to change the meaning, we get -
In service law there is place for the concepts of adverse possession or holding over , and
since the matter has become very old, it would be reasonable..
This new proposition completely changes the decision of the court because the major reason
of the judgement was that that it would not be reasonable for the University to fill up the post
on the basis of the notification issued in the year 1993. The University may, therefore, issue a
fresh notification to fill up the post. The process of selection and appointment on the basis of
the fresh notification should be completed within six months from today.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
38/41
37 Right to Information
CASE 6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 04.01.2010
Appellants: Khanapuram Gandaiah
Vs.
Respondent: Administrative Officer and Ors.46
Facts
1. Petitioner filed an application dated 15.11.2006 under Section6of the RTI Act beforethe Administrative Officer-cum-Assistant State Public Information Officer (respondent
No. 1) seeking information to the queries mentioned therein.
2. The said application was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2006 and an appeal againstthe said order was also dismissed vide order dated 20.1.2007.
3. Second Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh StateInformation Commission vide order dated 20.11.2007.
4. The petitioner challenged the said order before the High Court, seeking a direction tothe Respondent No. 1 to furnish the information as under what circumstances the
Respondent No. 4 had passed the Judicial Order dismissing the appeal against the
interim relief granted by the Trial Court.
5. The Respondent No. 4 had been impleaded as respondent by name.6. The Writ Petition had been dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that the
information sought by the petitioner cannot be asked for under the RTI Act.
Issues
1. Petition: to know the reasons as to how the Respondent No. 4 has decided his appealin a particular manner.
2. Why Respondent No. 4 had ignored certain documents and why he had not taken noteof certain arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel.
46MANU/SC/0646/2010
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','55486','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','55486','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','55486','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','55486','1'); -
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
39/41
38 Right to Information
Judgment
1. The application filed by the petitioner before the public authority is per se illegal andunwarranted. A judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is
not to protect malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to
which the administration of justice would be exposed if the concerned judicial officers
were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions
might offend. If anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the
independence of the judiciary. A judge should be free to make independent decisions.
2. As the petitioner has misused the provisions of the RTI Act, the High Court had rightlydismissed the writ petition.
3. In view of the above, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly.Ratio Decidenti
A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a
conclusion
TEST OF CONFIRMATION:
The test of confirmation being applied in the present case is Wambaughs test of inversion.
The proposition is A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to
such a conclusion
Removing the word no or not to change the meaning, we get-
A judge is bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion.
This new proposition completely changes the decision of the court because the major reason
of the judgment was that a judge should be free to make independent decisions, and it the not
is removed it would completely change the decision of the court.
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
40/41
39 Right to Information
Conclusion and Suggestion
Right to information has rightly replaced the freedom of information, The FOI Act,2002 had
many exemptions whereas the new RTI Act,2005 has changes which makes all public bodies,
authorities and functionaries accountable for their behavior with public dealings.
RTI makes the Government more accountable and responsible to Citizens of India as it
empowers them to seek information from public authority. Thus the RTI enables the
Government and functionaries to be under the surveillance of the citizens of India.RTI has
been a very vital ingredient to usher in transparency and reduce corruption.
Also from the case analysis done
It is concluded as:
-
8/2/2019 Right to Information 2
41/41
40 Right to Information
Bibliography
Books Referred
1. Dr. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India(Lexis Nexis ButterworthsWadhwa Nagpur, New Delhi, Fourteenth Edition Reprint 2009).
2. Dr. S. K. Awasthi, The Right to Information Act,2005(Dwivedi Law Agency,Allahabad, 2008)
3. Dr. Durga Das Basu. Commentary on the constitution of India Volume 2(Wadhwaand Company, Delhi, Eight Edition 2007)
4. Dr. Madabhushi Sridhar, Right to Information, law and practice (Wadhwa andcompany Nagpur, New Delhi, First edition Reprint 2007).
Search Engines
www.manupatra.com
http://www.manupatra.com/http://www.manupatra.com/http://www.manupatra.com/