Context

• The Right to Information (RTI) Act was introduced with the objective of enhancing transparency and empowering citizens by granting them access to government-held information.
• It was perceived as a means to uphold democratic principles by ensuring accountability and reducing corruption.
• However, despite its initial promise, the Act has encountered numerous challenges, resulting in a diminished impact.
• Therefore, it is important to examine the trajectory of the RTI Act, the systemic issues that have weakened its implementation, and the legal interpretations that have further restricted citizens’ access to information. 

The Initial Promise of the RTI Act

• The RTI Act was seen as a landmark piece of legislation that recognized citizens as the true rulers of the nation.
• By codifying the fundamental right to information, the Act provided an effective tool for public oversight, allowing people to monitor the functioning of the government.
• This empowerment was expected to curb corruption and arbitrariness, leading to a more transparent and accountable administration.
• The law was hailed as one of the best transparency laws in the world, offering a legal framework for citizens to seek information with dignity and respect.
• However, the optimism surrounding the Act quickly diminished as the government and bureaucracy resisted this shift in power.

Systematic Issues and Judicial Interpretations that Weakened the RTI Act

• Bureaucratic Resistance and Systemic Erosion
  • One of the earliest challenges to the RTI Act was the reluctance of government officials to relinquish control over information.
  • Recognising that the Act effectively transferred power from public servants to citizens, the government attempted to weaken the law through amendments.
  • However, strong public opposition forced it to abandon these efforts. Despite this, a gradual erosion of the Act’s effectiveness ensued through bureaucratic resistance and judicial reinterpretations.
  • The implementation of the Act was entrusted to Information Commissions, which functioned as appellate authorities.
  • Unfortunately, most of the commissioners appointed were retired bureaucrats, many of whom viewed these positions as post-retirement sinecures rather than opportunities to uphold transparency.
  • Their reluctance to impose penalties for non-compliance further weakened the Act.
  • Additionally, delays in appointing commissioners led to massive backlogs, rendering the right to information ineffective.
  • The mandated 30-day period for providing information was often not adhered to, turning RTI into a tool that provided historical records rather than timely insights.
• Judicial Interpretations Restricting RTI
  • Central Board of Secondary Education vs Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)
  • A significant shift in the interpretation of the RTI Act occurred with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Central Board of Secondary Education vs Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011).
  • The judgment challenged the strict interpretation of Section 8, which outlines exemptions to the right to information.
  • The Court’s assertion that indiscriminate use of RTI could hinder administrative efficiency and national development introduced a restrictive view of the law.
  • This perspective justified the denial of information on broad grounds and cast suspicion on RTI applicants, leading to an environment where transparency was seen as an obstruction rather than a fundamental right.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner (2012)
  • The erosion of the RTI Act continued with the Supreme Court’s decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner (2012).
  • In this case, the Court ruled that information about a public servant’s disciplinary records and financial dealings was ‘personal information’ and therefore exempt under Section 8(1)(j).
  • The judgment did not fully consider whether the information was related to a public activity or if its disclosure was in the larger public interest.
  • By narrowly interpreting the law, the Court set a precedent that allowed authorities to withhold crucial information, effectively converting the RTI into a Right to Deny Information (RDI).
  • This interpretation has been cited in multiple subsequent rulings, further restricting transparency.

The Implications of a Weakening RTI Act

• Reduced Government Accountability and Transparency
  • One of the core objectives of the RTI Act was to make the government more transparent and accountable to the public.
  • By allowing citizens to seek information on governmental decisions, policies, and expenditures, the Act aimed to ensure that public officials remained answerable for their actions.
  • However, the increasing reluctance of Information Commissions to impose penalties, the excessive delays in providing information, and judicial restrictions on disclosure have made it easier for authorities to evade scrutiny.
  • For example, the SC’s ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner (2012) set a precedent that allows government officials to withhold crucial information by classifying it as “personal.”
  • This significantly reduces public oversight over government functionaries, making it easier for misconduct, inefficiency, and corruption to go unchecked.
• Increase in Corruption and Misuse of Public Funds
  • A strong RTI framework acts as a deterrent against corruption by ensuring that public officials are aware that their actions are subject to scrutiny.
  • When the implementation of the RTI Act is weakened, corrupt practices become easier to hide.
  • Government contracts, public procurement processes, and financial allocations, areas where corruption is most prevalent, become opaquer, allowing misappropriation of public funds without fear of exposure.
  • For instance, activists have used RTI to uncover major scams in the past, such as the Adarsh Housing Society scam and the Vyapam scam.
• Hindrance to Investigative Journalism and Public Awareness
  • The RTI Act has been a critical tool for journalists and researchers who rely on access to government data to investigate issues of public interest.
  • Many major news stories and investigative reports have been based on information obtained through RTI applications.
  • However, as government departments and Information Commissions become more reluctant to disclose information, the ability of journalists to report on corruption, policy failures, and governance issues is severely affected.

The Way Forward: A Call for Citizen Vigilance

• To safeguard the integrity of the RTI Act, active citizen participation is essential.
• Public awareness and media discourse must highlight attempts to dilute the Act and push for reforms that restore its effectiveness.
• Information Commissions must be strengthened by appointing independent and competent officials with a commitment to transparency.
• Additionally, the legal framework must be reviewed to ensure that exemptions under Section 8 are interpreted in a manner that prioritizes public interest over bureaucratic convenience.

Conclusion

• While the RTI Act was initially seen as a powerful tool to uphold transparency and democracy, its effectiveness has been steadily eroded by bureaucratic resistance, judicial restrictions, and legislative amendments.
• The shift from an era of optimism to one of scepticism underscores the challenges in maintaining government accountability.
• However, the responsibility to preserve the essence of the RTI Act lies with the citizens and media, who must actively defend their fundamental right to information.