The Right to Know- Brief on The Right to Information Act
š¢ The Right to Know: The Right to Information Act, 2005
š¹ Introduction
The Right to Know is a fundamental democratic principle empowering citizens to access information held by public authorities. It promotes transparency, accountability, and good governance.
In India, this right is legally recognized through the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), which came into force on October 12, 2005.
š¹ Purpose and Objectives of RTI Act
To promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
To empower citizens by enabling them to access information under the control of public authorities.
To reduce corruption and encourage informed citizen participation.
To establish Public Information Officers (PIOs) for responding to information requests.
To provide penalties for non-compliance and ensure timely disclosure.
š¹ Key Features of the RTI Act
Applies to all Central, State, and local government bodies, including government-funded organizations.
Defines āinformationā broadly to include any material in any form (records, documents, emails, contracts).
Citizens can request information by submitting an application to the PIO.
Requires disclosure of reasons for decisions, categories of information held, and powers of officers.
Third-party information is protected under certain conditions.
Establishes Information Commissions at Central and State levels to oversee compliance and hear appeals.
āļø Judicial Recognition and Interpretation of the Right to Know
Although the RTI Act codified the right, the right to information was earlier recognized by the courts as implicit in the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
š§¾ Important Case Laws on the Right to Know and RTI
1. State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975)
Facts:
This case related to the disclosure of election records.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the right to know is implicit in the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Significance:
Recognized access to information as a constitutional right, predating the RTI Act.
2. S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) (The Judges Transfer Case)
Facts:
The petitioners sought disclosure of information about judgesā transfers.
Held:
The Court observed that free flow of information is vital in a democracy and the right to information is implicit in Article 19(1)(a).
Significance:
Emphasized transparency in government and the right of citizens to know.
3. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)
Facts:
CBSE refused to disclose answer sheets under RTI.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that exam answer sheets are information accessible under the RTI Act and refusal violated the Act.
Significance:
Confirmed citizensā right to access personal data and official records under RTI.
4. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged restrictions on disclosure of candidatesā criminal and financial records.
Held:
The Court held that information about criminal antecedents and assets of election candidates must be disclosed under RTI.
Significance:
Strengthened voter awareness and promoted electoral transparency.
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Facts:
Related to public disclosure of environmental information.
Held:
The Supreme Court recognized environmental information as critical for public welfare and democracy.
Significance:
Paved the way for inclusion of environmental data under RTI and public scrutiny.
6. PUCL v. Union of India (1997)
Facts:
Concerning the disclosure of information about custodial deaths.
Held:
The Court held that information on human rights violations must be disclosed to protect citizens.
Significance:
Linked RTI to human rights protection and government accountability.
š Summary of Judicial Approach
| Case | Key Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975) | Right to information as implicit right | Right to know under Article 19(1)(a) |
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) | Transparency in government | Right to information vital in democracy |
| CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) | Access to answer sheets under RTI | Personal data is accessible under RTI |
| Union of India v. ADR (2002) | Disclosure of criminal/financial records of candidates | Voterās right to information strengthened |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) | Environmental information disclosure | Environmental info is part of publicās right to know |
| PUCL v. Union of India (1997) | Disclosure of custodial death info | RTI linked with human rights protection |
ā Conclusion
The Right to Information Act is a powerful tool to enforce the Right to Know, fostering transparency, accountability, and public participation in governance. Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in recognizing and expanding this right even before RTIās enactment and continues to uphold the principles behind it.
The case law firmly establishes that access to government-held information is fundamental to a democratic society, enabling citizens to challenge corruption, inefficiency, and arbitrariness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments