Right to information as a tool of democracy
The Right to Information (RTI) is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. It empowers citizens by giving them access to information about the functioning of the government, enabling transparency, accountability, and participation. In India, the Right to Information Act, 2005 codifies this right and has transformed the relationship between the state and its citizens.
Below is a detailed explanation of how RTI functions as a tool of democracy, followed by in-depth analysis of more than four important case laws that highlight its impact.
🔍 RTI as a Tool of Democracy
A democracy thrives on informed participation. For citizens to make meaningful contributions, especially in electing representatives, participating in policy debates, or holding public officials accountable, access to information is essential.
RTI Enables:
Transparency – Citizens can inspect public records, leading to reduced corruption.
Accountability – Government officials are answerable for their actions.
Participation – Informed public opinion leads to better governance.
Empowerment – Marginalized groups can use RTI to fight injustices.
Good Governance – The government is compelled to act more responsibly.
🧑⚖️ Key Case Laws Strengthening RTI in India
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975)
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 865
Background: Raj Narain sought details about the expenses incurred by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during her election campaign.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that “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.”
This case laid the foundation for recognizing Right to Information as part of Article 19(1)(a) – the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Significance: This landmark judgment created the constitutional backing for the RTI Act that came much later in 2005.
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – Judges’ Transfer Case
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149
Background: Concerned with the transfer of judges and the demand for disclosure of correspondence between the Chief Justice and the government.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that “disclosure of information regarding the functioning of the government must be the rule, and secrecy an exception.”
It upheld that citizens have the right to know how public institutions are functioning.
Significance: This case further strengthened the idea that transparency is essential for democratic governance and judicial accountability.
3. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
Citation: (2002) 5 SCC 294
Background: A PIL was filed demanding that candidates contesting elections should disclose their criminal records, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that voters have a right to know the background of candidates contesting elections.
This was held to be part of Article 19(1)(a) – the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Significance: A landmark ruling that directly links information and electoral democracy. The ruling led to the Election Commission mandating affidavits from candidates disclosing these details.
4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)
Citation: AIR 2003 SC 2363
Background: The Union government tried to nullify the effect of the ADR judgment (above) through an ordinance, trying to restrict disclosure norms.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance.
It reaffirmed the right to information about public functionaries, especially those contesting elections.
Significance: The case reaffirmed the supremacy of citizens’ right to information in a democracy over legislative attempts to dilute transparency.
5. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)
Citation: (2011) 8 SCC 497
Background: A student requested access to his evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act. CBSE denied it, citing confidentiality.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that evaluated answer sheets are "information" under the RTI Act and must be disclosed.
It emphasized that public authorities cannot deny access to information arbitrarily.
Significance: Extended RTI’s reach to educational institutions and promoted transparency in evaluation processes. It empowered students and set a precedent for education-related RTI use.
6. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC & Ors (2013)
Citation: (2013) 1 SCC 212
Background: A person sought service records and personal details of a government employee under the RTI Act.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that personal information which does not serve any public interest cannot be disclosed.
Introduced the concept of privacy vs. transparency balance.
Significance: While this case placed reasonable limits on RTI, it emphasized the need to protect privacy where public interest is not involved — an evolving area in RTI jurisprudence post the Puttaswamy judgment (Right to Privacy case, 2017).
7. Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer (2010)
Citation: (2010) 2 SCC 1
Background: An RTI applicant demanded reasons for a judicial officer’s decision.
Judgment:
The Court held that RTI does not empower citizens to demand reasoning or justification of judicial decisions, which are already in the public domain via judgments.
It clarified that RTI is about access to existing information, not generating explanations.
Significance: Helped clarify the scope and limits of RTI – especially in judicial and administrative contexts.
📌 Conclusion
The Right to Information is not just a legal mechanism, but a democratic tool that enables the empowerment of citizens. Through various judicial pronouncements, the Indian judiciary has consistently upheld and expanded the scope of this right.
While the RTI Act, 2005 is the legislative manifestation, its roots lie deep in constitutional principles—especially the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the idea of open governance enshrined in the Preamble and Article 21 (Right to Life).
The discussed cases collectively shape the jurisprudence of transparency in India, ensuring that democracy is not just periodic elections, but a continuous dialogue between the government and the governed.
RELATED Blog
0 comments