TOPIC: RIGHT TO INFORMATION: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

SUBJECT: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Submitted to:

Dr. Mohammad Atif Khan

(Assistant Professor)
Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

Submitted by:

PALAK ASATI
(ROLL NO. 95, Section-A,)

Hidayatullah National Law University, Naya Raipur, Atal

Nagar, Raipur (C.G.

1
 Certificate of Originality
I, Palak Asati , have undergone research of the project work titled “RIGHT TO INFORMATION:
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE,” as a student of Public International Law. I hereby declare
that this research project has been prepared by the student for academic purpose only, and is the
outcome of the investigation and preparation done by me under the guidance and supervision of
Dr. Mohammad Atif Khan, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Public International Law,
Hidayatullah National Law University,Raipur. The author endorses certain views of his own and
gives due credit to the jurists wherever required.

PALAK ASATI (018/2018/1984)

SEMESTER IV

SECTION A

ROLL NUMBER-95

B.A. LLB (HONS.)

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I, Palak Asati, would like to humbly present this project to Dr. Mohammad Atif Khan. I would
first of all like to express my most sincere gratitude to Dr. Mohammad Atif Khan for his
encouragement and guidance regarding several aspects of this project. I am thankful for being
given the opportunity of doing a project on ‘RIGHT TO INFORMATION: INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVE’

I am thankful to the IT lab assistants and the library staffs for facilitating my research by helping
me obtain the required material that was so integral to my completing this project.

I am thankful to my parents for their constant support and loving encouragement. Last but
definitely not the least; I am thankful to my seniors for all their support, tips and valuable advice
whenever needed. I hereby present this project with a humble heart.

PALAK ASATI (018/2018/1984)

SEMESTER IV

SECTION A

ROLL NUMBER-95

B.A. LLB (HONS.)

3
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ 2

Chapter One: Introduction And Research Methodology ..........................................................

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Research Objective ............................................................................................................... 8
1.3Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 8
1.3.1Books ........................................................................................................................
1.3.2Articles ......................................................................................................................
1.4 Research Methodology and Source of Data ........................................................................... 9
1.5 Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................ 9
1.6 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 9
1.7 Chapterization ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.8 Mode of Citation ................................................................................................................. 10
1.9 Scope and Limitation ........................................................................................................... 10

Chapter Two: Factors responsible for adoption of Right to Information ………………….12

Chapter Three: right to information: international perspective ……………………………15

Chapter Four: right to information: Indian perspective ……………………………………17

Chapter five:comparision between USA and Indian perspective……………………………25

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Suggestion ............................................................................. 26

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 27

Books Article

4
 ABSTRACT

For more than fifty years, secrecy has been the standard in the working of the world
Governments and straightforwardness as special case. In the pretense of securing the State's
advantage, secrecy in public undertakings has been a shield for those in government, a method
for hiding their activities from open examination. Access to information, however, is power in
the hands of the general population. It requests responsibility. This is fundamental in the working
of democratic society. The sign of a democratic system is the systematization of straightforward
and participative process which gives the general population access to information about the
administration it has conveyed to control, and empowers it to settle on an educated choice to
expel that legislature from power, if it wishes to. Similarly as secrecy undermines democracy,
information endangers authoritarianism.

Laws that permit secrecy are a colonial legacy and were embraced by totalitarian administrations
that no longer works in a democratic set up. However laws favoring secrecy of the government
activities have delayed for a large portion of a century after India turned into a democratic
republic. Scandinavia and USA established laws giving the natives a statutory right to
information in early 1960s. In any case, in India the Freedom of Information Bill came to be
presented in the Indian Parliament in 2002.In 2005, the Right to Information Act came into
existence. This progression came as a much needed refresher in a cagey difficult to reach
framework of the government. This project deals with the international perspective of Right to
Information, specifically the concept of Right to Information as adopted by the United States of
America. Also, this research project gives a comparative study of the ideologies, concept and
laws with regard to Right to Information in India and the United States of America, the
differences and similarities as well as the booms and problems faced by the these two incredibly
strong nations.

5
 INTRODUCTION

1992 World Bank document on Governance and Development identified Responsibility,

Transparency and Information as two specific aspects out of the seven aspects of 'governance' in
its quest for 'good governance'. As a result, individual’s Right to Information started being
recognized as an important instrument to promote transparency, accountability and openness in
public administration. In fact, invisible government has become obsolete in this era of
Globalization and Liberalisation. The stake holders, citizens, consumers of public services, the
civil society organisations, the beneficiaries of development programmes, the business and
commercial houses – all of these must receive the information they need from public authorities
relating to their decisions, administration or operations.

A democracy sustains by accepting new ideologies, experimenting with them, and rejecting if
found unimportant. Therefore, it is necessary that whatever ideas the government has must be
freely put forth before the public. The free flow of information is must for democracy because it
helps the society to flourish. It is recognized that the right to information is necessary to
democracy for ensuring transparency and accountability. Therefore, it ensures that governance is
more participatory being the most important component of successful democratic government.

The Right to Information acquired strength when UDHR was adopted in 1948. Thus, providing
everyone the right to receive and seek information through any media, regardless of frontiers.
Moreover, The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights 1966 states, “Everyone shall
have the right to freedom of expression, the freedom to seek and impart information and ideas of
all kind, regardless of frontiers”

Both the judiciary and the legislature function as open. The legislature does the same by way of
open debate, by the representatives of people to which press and people both have access.
Similarly, the judiciary decides cases only after giving both parties, a right to be heard. These
two wings do not carry out their operation in secrecy.

Also, the Executive always carries out its work in secrecy and people or press do not have access

6
or control over it. Nowadays, the executive also promulgates and delegates legislative functions
and adjudicates on controversial matters.
Justice Krishna Iyer in the Maneka Gandhi case said “a government which functions in secrecy
not only acts against democratic decency, but also buries itself with its own burial”. Therefore, if
we look at the concept of power, it can be inferred that power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. There is always a danger that despite several efforts for welfare purposes,
the power may be used arbitrarily.
Therefore, right to know is necessary to handle the affairs of executive and provides an platform
for people to participate in governance.

7
 RESEARCH QUESTION

 Right to information from international perspective?

 What are the factors responsible for adoption of right to information?
 What are the major similarities and differences in the concept of granting right to seek
information in India and United States of America?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The project is descriptive and analytical in nature. This study is done with the help of secondary
data. The study is based on academic writings such as books, journal and online resources. While
using such material a great care has been taken in term of their credibility. Likewise, the online
resources have been used with great care such as produced by the academics and trustworthy
organizations like

SOURCES OF DATA

The data used for making this project includes books, journals and online resources. Many
articles from the internet have been referred. Books provide a very comprehension study on this
subject. Books are also easily available, each author giving their own interpretation providing
wide area for research. Online databases like Jstor provided for the articles that provided good
material on the said topic.

8
 CHAPTERIZATION
• Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Methodology. It introduces the project topic that is right
to information from international perspective and raises various questions and objectives that are
further dealt in the project in various chapters.

• Chapter 2: Meaning of right to information from international perspective. It also explains

what is importance of right to information from international perspective.

• Chapter 3: factors responsible for adoption of right of information. It enumerates the

procedure involved in extraditing a criminal in India and important provisions.

• Chapter 4: comparision between Indian and American perspective towards right to

information . This chapter also mentions the right to information from Indian perspective.

MODE OF CITATION
The mode of citation used in the project is 19th Blue Book Edition. The authors and sites from
wherever data has been collected has been mentioned in the footnotes.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The scope of the project is to go deep into the topic of right to information from international
perspective. The author has gone to the length of understanding and reading importance of right
to information from Indian and American perspective The research was very smooth and hardly
the author found any limitations. But still more reliable data in the form of papers published by
International Organizations could not be found.

LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Lori Snyder Bennear and Sheila M. Olmstead (2008): The Impacts of the 'Right to Know':
Information Disclosure and the Violation of Drinking Water Standards, Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management. It disclose about the importance of right of
information and comparision of India and America views on Right to Information.

9
 CHAPTER 1

RIGHT TO INFORMATION- INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

WHY RIGHT TO INFORMATION?

The relationship between sin and secrecy is now universally recognized. A government which
operates is more secrecy is more prone to corruption. This is why, the right to information is
considered as a significant step in combating state corruption. Also, the right to information
helps to strengthen the foundations of a democratic set up. Unlike a totalitarian regime, a
democracy needs to be based on the trust of the governed. It should therefore, function in public
view as much as possible so that the citizens know its programmes, policies and aims and help
the government in the same. Secrecy in government on the contrary, tends to promote corruption
and oppression or abuse of authority, and thereby, alienate the government from the governed.
As per the Franks Committee of the United Kingdom, "Government which pursues secret aims,
or which operates in greater secrecy than the effective conduct of its proper functions require, or
which turns information services into propaganda agencies, will lose the trust of the people. It
will be countered by ill-informed and destructive criticism" (Franks Committee Report: 1972).
Openness is therefore regarded as an essential ingredient of democracy and the right to
information as a fundamental democratic right. Lastly, for democracy, to be effective and
meaningful, should also have responsive administration which is a bilateral process. On the one
side, administration is required to be citizen-centric which implies that it should be responsive to
the citizens' legitimate needs, aspirations and grievances. The citizens, on the other side, are
required to be cooperative and yet vigilant. For, it is the eternal vigilance of enlightened citizens
which facilitates accountability and prevents arbitrariness in public administration, and brings it
closer to the citizens. An eternal and enlightened vigilance is, thus, the best guarantee of
democratic government. There is no denying that the right to know is an effective means for the
citizens' enlightenment. For, it is this right which gives them access to government departments
and documents and thereby enables them to acquire knowledge of what is happening in the
government. Fourthly, the right to information tends to remove unnecessary secrecy surrounding
the decision-making process in the government, and thereby helps to improve the quality of

10
decision making in public policy and administration. It enables the citizens to know about the
government decisions and the basis on which they are made so that they can exercise sound
judgement on the merits of public policies and respond appropriately to influence the process of
policy formulation and decision making in public governance. Last but not the least, the right to
information is an effective means to strengthen grassroots democracy and ensure people's
participation in local governance and development activities. It would also bring the local
governments under public scrutiny and thereby help them to avoid "costly mistakes." To quote
James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the American Constitution, "A Popular
Government without popular information or means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a Farce or
a Tragedy or perhaps both." The Right to Information acquired strength when UDHR was
adopted in 1948. Thus, providing everyone the right to receive and seek information through any
media, regardless of frontiers1

1
Article 19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

11
CHAPTER 2 - Factors responsible for adoption of Right to Information

Without people’s participation, democracy cannot deliver to its highest potential. Throughout the
world, civil society has often led the way towards open governance, a prerequisite of any
meaningful participation in decision-making processes of government. Civil societies recognize
that individuals and groups must have the right to access information held by their government,
its agencies and other public bodies, which relates to matters of public interest and affects people
in general. Without such information, governments cannot be held to account and there can be
little shared understanding between the government and citizens regarding what the government
is or should be doing. In the course of its work the government collects a lot of information
regarding its citizens, the state of the country, the activities to be undertaken and how to spend
public money. The information that is collected and recorded has for a long time been highly
protected by governments and there was a presumption against disclosing it unless government
decided that people need to know. Now, the tides have changed rapidly and many countries
recognise that people have a human right to be able to access information, and that conversely
governments have a duty to disclose the information unless there is a very good reason for
withholding it. Such reasons may include a threat to national security, invasion of personal
privacy or If disclosure would be prejudicial to international relations with another country. A
number of international bodies with responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights
have authoritatively recognized the fundamental and legal nature of the right to freedom of
information, as well as the need for effective legislation to secure respect for that right in
practice. These include the UN and Commonwealth. This is supplemented by growing consensus
at the national level of the importance of freedom of information as a human right and as a
fundamental underpinning of democracy, as reflected in the inclusion of a right to 234 freedom
of information in many modern constitutions, as well as a dramatic increase in the number of
countries which have adopted legislation giving effect to this right in recent years 2. Collectively,
this amounts to clear international recognition of freedom of information as a human right.
However, there are still many countries that do not specifically protect the right to information.
Often, the right is guaranteed to some extent under the constitution, or legislation empowers

2
Human Rights Law Review (feb.26,2020 , 10:04 PM) http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r30698.pdf.

12
people access to information relating to a particular topic. Constitutional protection of the right
to know may be included as part of the right to freedom of expression, for example in Antigua
and Barbuda, where Article 12 includes “freedom to receive information and ideas without
interference”2, or it may be specifically protected, for example in Mexico, where Article 6 states
in part that “the right of information shall be guaranteed by the state.”3 However, the best way to
ensure the government gives people access to information in general is when they enact special
legislation to that effect – a right to information law – which details what information the
government, has a duty to make available and how to go about accessing it. There have been a
variety of internal and external pressures on governments to adopt FOI laws. Civil society groups
have played a key role in the promotion and adoption of laws in many countries. This has
included campaigning by press and environmental groups. Governments are providing more as
part of their "e-government" efforts to make services more efficient and accessible.
Constitutional rights. The transition to democracy for most countries has led to the recognition of
human rights in constitutions. Almost alt newly developed or modified constitutions include a
right to access information from government bodies 3. Over 40 countries now have constitutional
provisions on access. They also often include provisions on a right to information on the
environment and the right of individuals to access their personal files, • Scandals. Often, crises
brought about because of a lack of transparency have led to the adoption of laws to prevent
future problems. In long established democracies such as Ireland, Japan and the UK, laws were
finally adopted as a result of sustained campaigns by civil society and political scandals relating
the health and the environment. Anti-corruption campaigns have been hugely successful in
transitional countries attempting to change their cultures. The Thai Prime Minister in August
2003 called for citizens to use their Access to Information Act to reduce corruption. •
Modernization and the Information Society, The expansion of the Internet into everyday usage
has increased demand for more information by the public, businesses and civil society groups.
Inside governments, the need to modernize record systems and the move towards e-government
has created an internal constituency that is promoting the dissemination of information as a goal
in itself. In Slovenia, the Ministry for the Information Society was the leading voice for the
successful adoption of the law. • International pressure. The international community has been
influential in promoting access. In some countries such as Bosnia, the international organizations

3
Oxford university online (Feb.24,2020 5:00PM) https://www.oxfordscholarship.com.

13
running the country ordered the creation of a law. International bodies such as the
Commonwealth, Council of Europe and the Organization of American States have drafted
guidelines or model legislation and the Council of Europe decided in September 2003 to develop
the first international treaty on access. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and
others have pressed countries to adopt laws to reduce corruption and to make financial systems
more accountable. The Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information promoted by
the UN has been signed by dozens of countries who are now committed to adopted laws on
access to environmental information. Justice Krishna Iyer in the Maneka Gandhi case said “a
government which functions in secrecy not only acts against democratic decency, but also buries
itself with its own burial” 4

4
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 SC 597(India)

14
CHAPTER 3 - Right to Information – International Perspective

Sweden was the first country to provide freedom of information to its citizens as far back as
1766. The constitutional provision guaranteeing this freedom was adopted in that year, as part of
the Freedom of the Press Act, one of Sweden's four basic constitutional laws. It was the outcome
of an "intense struggle" during the last half of the eighteenth century between the two main
political parties of Sweden, the Hats and the Caps. With the defeat of the Hats in 1765 after a
long term of office, the Caps inserted the principle of public access in the Freedom of the Press
Act as a reaction to their frustration over excessive administrative secrecy as well as press
censorship under the previous regime. Subsequently, the principle was accepted as part of the
"the normal political life of Sweden5" (Rowat: 1980). In other countries, however, development
has been far more recent. Among other Scandinavian Countries, Finland enacted the Freedom of
Information (FoI) legislation in 1951, followed by Denmark and Norway in 1970. The United
States enacted its FoI Act in 1966, exactly two hundred years after Sweden. The Act was
amended in 1974 to limit the exemptions and to provide for penalties against those government
officials who would found to be withholding information or treating FoI requests in an arbitrary
or capricious fashion. Austria, France and the Netherlands had this legislation during the
seventies, while Australia, Canada and New Zealand had it in 1982-83. Various states or 3 3
provinces of the United States, Canada and Australia have also enacted their own FoI
legislations. In Bulgaria the Access to Information Act was enacted in June 2000. The scope of
its applicability is wide, since the term "public information", under the Act, has been construed
to mean "any information relating to social life", which gives the citizens an opportunity to form
their own opinion about the activities of the persons obligated to provide information. The Act
gives the right of access to information not only to the citizens but to the non-citizens and legal
entities too. Ireland enacted FoI Act in 1997 which came into force in 1998. In the Republic of
South Africa the Right of Access to Information is a constitutional right which has been further
reinforced with the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000. The objectives of the Act,
inter alia, include promotion of a culture of human rights and social justice, imparting
accountability and good governance and enabling public participation in decision making by

5
Journal of Political Sciences & Public J Affairs 4: 207 (2016)

15
public bodies that affects their rights. The Act contains two separate parts, each dealing with the
right of access to records of public bodies and private bodies respectively. The Japanese law
concerning the Disclosure of Information held by Administrative Organs is applicable to defined
"administrative organs"6. It seeks to ensure that the government is accountable to the people for
its various operations, and to contribute to the promotion of a fair and democratic administration
that is subject to the people's accurate understanding and criticism. Thailand enacted its Official
Information Act in 1997. It is a very short legislation and lacks clarity on certain important
aspects, such as the procedure for receiving and processing of information requests and the
appeal and complaint procedures (Shankari: 2000). On the whole, the FoI legislations in
developed democracies have three fundamental features as follows: • a legal right of access to
government records without a demonstrated need to know; • specific exemptions to protect
national security, personal privacy, law enforcement and the like; and • Where access is refused,
a right of appeal independent of government officials (Bell and Watchirs: 1988).

6
Journal of the Indian Law Institute (feb.02,2020, 5:00 PM) https://www.jstor.org.

16
CHAPTER 3 - Right to Information- Indian Perspective

In the life of Indian Republic, the first political commitment to the citizen's right to information
came up on the eve of the Lok Sabha Elections in 1977 as a corollary to public resentment
against suppression of information, press censorship and abuse of authority during the Internal
Emergency of 1975-77. In its election manifesto of the 1977, the Janata Party promised "an open
government", and declared that it would not 'misuse the intelligence services and governmental
authority for personal and partisan ends". Pursuant to this commitment, the Janata government
headed by Morarji Desai constituted in 1977 a working group to ascertain if the Official Secrets
Act, 1923 could be modified so as to facilitate greater flow of information to the public. The
working of group comprising officials from the cabinet Secretariat and the Ministries of Home
Affairs, Finance and Defence labour for months to recommend that the Act of 1923 should be
retained without change. This 'no change' recommendation was far from popular expectations.
The very composition of the group, however, was indicative to the kind of recommendation
made by it. Bureaucracy by its nature revels in secrecy, and hence, any other kind of
recommendation would have been an exception. The country was ultimately back to 1923 to
'square one' as it was contented to regulate its communication system with "We, the People of
India" along the network of the colonial Official Secrets Act (Maheswari: 1980). The events
which helped create political commitment to the right to information for the second time had
resemblance with the historical context out of which the principle of public access to information
evolved in Sweden. The National Front Government's renewed commitment to this right was the
outcome of the people's frustration over the earlier government's reluctance to part with the
information relating to Bofors and other deals (Guha Roy: 1990). In its 1989 Lok Sabha Election
Manifesto, the National Front Committed itself to "open government", and declared
unequivocally that "people's right to information shall be guaranteed through Constitutional
provisions". Reiterating this commitment, the then Prime Minister V.P. Singh, in his first
broadcast to the nation in December 1989 said, "We will have to increase access to information.
If the government functions in full public view, wrong doings will be minimised 7. To this end,
Official Secrets Act will be amended and we will make the functioning more transparent. Right

7
Quest Journals Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science Volume 4 ~ Issue 9 (2016)

17
to information will be enshrined in our Constitution." Sadly, despite such strong commitment,
there was actually no headway towards transparency and openness in our governmental
functioning due to the early fall of the National Front Government. Subsequently, the National
Agenda for Governance of the present multi-party coalition called National Democratic Alliance
(NDA) declared: "Our first commitment to the people is to give a stable, honest, transparent, and
efficient government capable of accomplishing all-round development. For this the government
shall introduce time-bound programme of needed administrative reforms…" In pursuance with
this commitment, the NDA Government introduced the Freedom of Information Bill, 2000 in the
Parliament. After having been pending for about two years the Bill was finally passed by the
parliament on 4th December, 2002 and it received the assent of the President of India on 6th
January, 2003. Meanwhile, instead of waiting for a central legislation, half a dozen states have
enacted their own laws on right to information (RTI). These include Goa (1997), Tamil Nadu
(1997), Rajasthan (2000), Maharashtra (2000), Karnataka (2000) and Delhi (2001). Besides,
Madhya Pradesh has issued wide-ranging administrative directives on dissemination of
information upto the level of Gram Panchayats. Interestingly, all the states that have their own
RTI laws were non-NDA partners ruled states when the Act was passed. In some of these states,
the law is too weak. The Tamil Nadu Act, for instance, has imposed more than twenty
restrictions on the application of the right. The Goa and Karnataka Acts, on the other hand, have
several good features. However, in all these states, the concerned citizens and civil society
organisations still complain about denial of information on important issues relating to public
interest. The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 has evoked lot of controversy on various issues.
Some of them are notably as follows: (a) The Act exempts from disclosure "information
exchanged in confidence between the Central and State governments or any of their authorities
or agencies". It is commonly felt that this is too wide a clause to cover a lot of such information
which should otherwise be available to the people. (b) A major lacuna of the Act is that it does
not specifically provide for penalties against the officials who in violation, of the law, would
either refuse to provide information or give false, misleading or incomplete information. (c) In
this age of economic liberalisation when the governments are keen on outsourcing many of their
traditional functions to private agencies and allowing foreign direct investments in telecom,
power, banking and other major sectors, the Act, however, does not apply to the private sector, in
contrast to the South African law enacted in the same year which specifically brought the private

18
sector under its purview so that there could be no disparity between the public sector and the
private sector engaged in similar commercial activity. (d) The most serious shortcoming of the
Act lies in that it provides for appeals only within the government bodies. It not only bars
jurisdiction of courts but also ensures that no appeal should lie even with an independent body.
“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, the freedom to seek and impart
information and ideas of all kind, regardless of frontiers” 8

8
Article 19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

19
CHAPTER 4 - Comparison between the Indian and American approach towards Right to
Information

United States of America:

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted in 1966 and went into effect in 1967. It has
been substantially .amended several times, most recently in 1996 by the Electronic Freedom of
Information Act. The law allows any person or organization, regardless of citizenship or country
of origin, to ask for records held by federal government agencies. Agencies include executive
and military departments, government corporations and other entities which perform government
functions except for Congress, the courts or the President's immediate staff at the White House,
including the National Security Council. Government agencies must respond in 20 working days.
There are nine categories of discretionary exemptions national security, internal agency rules,
information protected by other statutes, business information, inter and intra agency memos,
personal privacy, law enforcement records, financial institutions and oil wells data. There are
142 different statutes that allow for withholding under exemption 3. In 2003, the Homeland
Security Act added a provision prohibiting the disclosure of voluntarily provided business
information relating to "Critical Infrastructure". Appeals of denials or complaints about extensive
delays can be made internally to the agency concerned. The federal courts can review and
overturn agency decisions. The courts have heard thousands of cases in the 35 years of the Act.
Management for FOIA is decentralized. The US Justice Department provides some guidance and
training for agencies. The FOIA also requires that government agencies publish material relating
to their structure and functions, rules, decisions, procedures, policies, and manuals. The 1996 E-
FOIA amendments required that agencies create "electronic reading rooms" and make available
electronically the information that must be published along with common documents requested.
The DOJ has issue guidance that documents that have been requested three times be made
available electronically. In 2002, there were over 2.4 million requests made to federal agencies
under the FOIA and the Privacy Act, the highest number ever. Law enforcement and personal
privacy were the most cited exemptions for withholding information. The FOIA has been
undermined by a lack of central oversight and in many agencies, long delays in processing
requests. In some instances information is released only after years or decades. The General

20
Accounting Agency found in 2002 that "backlogs of spending requests government wide are
substantial and growing indicating that agencies are falling behind in processing requests. In its
2003 audit of agencies practices, the National Security Archive review found a number of
problems. • Inaccurate or incomplete information about agency FOIA contacts. • Failure to
acknowledge requests. • Lost requests. • Excessive backlogs. • Complete decentralization of
agency FOI operations leading to delay and lack of oversight. • Inconsistent practices regarding
the acceptance of administrative appeals. • Appealing FOIA determinations may delay
processing, but also may get the agency's .attention. The Bush Administration has engaged in a
general policy of restricting access to information. In October 2001, Attorney General John
Ashcroft issued a memo stating that the Justice Department would defend in court any federal
agency that withheld information or justifiable grounds. Previously the standard was that the
presumption was for disclosure. However surveys done by the National Security Archive and
General Accounting Office found that for the most part the memo had not caused substantial
changes in releases, The Bush Administration has also refused to release information about the
secret meetings of the energy policy task force; ordered federal Websites to remove much of the
information that they had that could be sensitive issued a controversial memo limiting access to
records under the Presidential Records Act 255 in November 2001 which allows former
Presidents and Vice-Presidents to prevent access to records (bill are currently pending in
Congress to reverse that order); and has refused to disclose information on the Patriot Act and
the names of those arrested after September 11. There are a number of other laws that provide for
access. Goa RTI Act is the only one in India, which brings in private bodies under the
obligations of the its RTI Act to provide information to the public 9The Government in the
Sunshine Act requires the government to open the deliberations of multi-agency bodies such as
the Federal Communications Commission. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires the
openness of committees that advise federal agencies or the President. The Privacy Act of 1974
works in conjunction with the FOIA to allow individuals to access their personal records held by
federal agencies. The Executive Order on Classified National Security Information requires that
all information 25 years and older that has permanent historical value be automatically

9
The new Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 in South Africa dedicates an entire segment of the Act to
access of information from Private bodies. It clearly states the right of a person to access to information (in certain
cases) held by private bodies and provides in detail for a person to approach any private body and request for
information.

21
declassified within five years (since extended until December 2006) unless it is exempted.
Individuals can make requests for mandatory declassification instead of using the FOIA.
Decisions to retain classification are subject to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals
Panel. Between 1995-2001, over 950 million pages out of 1.65 billion pages were declassified,
100 million pages in 2001 alone. The executive order was amended in 2003 to somewhat restrict
release10. The Information Security Oversight Office, a division of the National Archives, has
policy oversight of the Government wide security classification system. ISOO's 2002 report says
that classification by government agencies is increasing while declassification has slowed down.
A number of states have information commissions which review decisions. State laws on
freedom of information have also been under threat since September 11 due to terrorism
concerns.

India:

In the life of Indian Republic, the first political commitment to the citizen's right to information
came up on the eve of the Lok Sabha Elections in 1977 as a corollary to public resentment
against suppression of information, press censorship and abuse of authority during the Internal
Emergency of 1975-77. In its election manifesto of the 1977, the Janata Party promised "an open
government", and declared that it would not 'misuse the intelligence services and governmental
authority for personal and partisan ends". Pursuant to this commitment, the Janata government
headed by Morarji Desai constituted in 1977 a working group to ascertain if the Official Secrets
Act, 1923 could be modified so as to facilitate greater flow of information to the public. The
working 4 4 group comprising officials from the cabinet Secretariat and the Ministries of Home
Affairs, Finance and Defence laboured for months to recommend that the Act of 1923 should be
retained without change. This 'no change' recommendation was far from popular expectations.
The very composition of the group, however, was indicative to the kind of recommendation
made by it. Bureaucracy by its nature revels in secrecy, and hence, any other kind of
recommendation would have been an exception. The country was ultimately back to 1923 to
'square one' as it was contented to regulate its communication system with "We, the People of
India" along the network of the colonial Official Secrets Act (Maheswari: 1980). The events

10
K. M. Shrivastava, The Right to Information: A Global Perspective ,Lancer(2009)

22
which helped create political commitment to the right to information for the second time had
resemblance with the historical context out of which the principle of public access to information
evolved in Sweden. The National Front Government's renewed commitment to this right was the
outcome of the people's frustration over the earlier government's reluctance to part with the
information relating to Bofors and other deals (Guha Roy: 1990). In its 1989 Lok Sabha Election
Manifesto, the National Front Committed itself to "open government", and declared
unequivocally that "people's right to information shall be guaranteed through Constitutional
provisions". Reiterating this commitment, the then Prime Minister V.P. Singh, in his first
broadcast to the nation in December 1989 said, "We will have to increase access to information.
If the government functions in full public view, wrong doings will be minimised. To this end,
Official Secrets Act will be amended and we will make the functioning more transparent. Right
to information will be enshrined in our Constitution." Sadly, despite such strong commitment,
there was actually no headway towards transparency and openness in our governmental
functioning due to the early fall of the National Front Government. Subsequently, the National
Agenda for Governance of the present multi-party coalition called National Democratic Alliance
(NDA) declared: "Our first commitment to the people is to give a stable, honest, transparent, and
efficient government capable of accomplishing all-round development. For this the government
shall introduce time-bound programme of needed administrative reforms…" In pursuance with
this commitment, the NDA Government introduced the Freedom of Information Bill, 2000 in the
Parliament. After having been pending for about two years the Bill was finally passed by the
parliament on 4th December, 2002 and it received the assent of the President of India on 6th
January, 2003. Meanwhile, instead of waiting for a central legislation, half a dozen states have
enacted their own laws on right to information (RTI). These include Goa (1997), Tamil Nadu
(1997), Rajasthan (2000), Maharashtra (2000), Karnataka (2000) and Delhi (2001). Besides,
Madhya Pradesh has issued wide-ranging administrative directives on dissemination of
information upto the level of Gram Panchayats. Interestingly, all the states that have their own
RTI laws were non-NDA partners ruled states when the Act was passed. In some of these states,
the law is too weak11. The Tamil Nadu Act, for instance, has imposed more than twenty
restrictions on the application of the right. The Goa and Karnataka Acts, on the other hand, have

11
Debashish Sankhari, A copy of the Report can be view at out Website, (Mar.02.2020,6:00 PM)
www.humanrightsinitiative.org

23
several good features. In addition, the Supreme Court of India has gone on to say that the Right
to Know is an integral part of the Right to Life and unless one has the Right to Information the
Right to Life cannot be exercised 12 However, in all these states, the concerned citizens and civil
society organisations still complain about denial of information on important issues relating to
public interest.13 The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 has evoked lot of controversy on
various issues. Some of them are notably as follows: (a) The Act exempts from disclosure
"information exchanged in confidence between the Central and State governments or any of their
authorities or agencies". It is commonly felt that this is too wide a clause to cover a lot of such
information which should otherwise be available to the people. (b) A major lacuna of the Act is
that it does not specifically provide for penalties against the officials who in violation, of the law,
would either refuse to provide information or give false, misleading or incomplete information.
(c) In this age of economic liberalisation when the governments are keen on outsourcing many of
their traditional functions to private agencies and allowing foreign direct investments in telecom,
power, banking and other major sectors, the Act, however, does not apply to the private sector, in
contrast to the South African law enacted in the same year which specifically brought the private
sector under its purview so that there could be no disparity between the public sector and the
private sector engaged in similar commercial activity. (d) The most serious shortcoming of the
Act lies in that it provides for appeals only within the government bodies. It not only bars
jurisdiction of courts but also ensures that no appeal should lie even with an independent body.

12
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. vs Proprietors of Indian Express, AIR 1989 SC 190(India)
13
Evolution and development of the right to informationact india(Feb.02.2020,6:00PM)www.legalserviceindia.com.

24
 CONCLUSION

The mere conferment of the right to information without changing the prevalent style of
governance would make the entire exercise futile. In the context of our present scenario
characterised by the lack of political will and the reluctant attitude of bureaucracy to recognise
the people's right to information, the role of civil society organisations would be crucial and
significant in ushering in a new era of open, transparent and accountable governance. This is
more so for a country like India, which has the unique distinction of being the world's largest
functional democracy for more than five decades. It is due to the success of our vibrant
democracy, albeit aberrations, that a large number of civil society organisations have been
playing catalytic role in various fields of public life. The more these organisations come forward
to enlighten and mobilise the people at the grassroots, the more would be the realisation of the
immense potential of the right to information. The Independent and creative role of Judiciary has
further strengthened the democracy in India. In fact, whatever be the political intention, the
Supreme Court has already declared that Right to Information is a Fundamental Right and denial
of information amounts to violation of the Right to Life. In its recent landmark judgement in the
case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Others V. Union of India & Another,
(2003) 4 SCC 399,the Supreme Court has also declared that voters’ fundamental right to know
the antecedents of a candidate (for election in the House of the People, the Council of States, the
Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of State) is independent of statutory rights under the
election law. It observed further that exposure to public gaze and scrutiny is one of the surest
means to cleanse our democratic governing system and to have competent legislatures. There is
no doubt, therefore, that the presence of dedicated and committed civil society organizations and
independent judiciary provide the ray of hope in the midst of darkness, and herein lies, the
strength of Indian democracy. As Bertrand Russell said,”Where there is a hope, despair is a
coward’s part”. So, when there is hope, let us not despair.

25
Bibliography
BOOKS

 P.K. Saini & R.K. Gupta, “Right to Information Act, 2005”, Deep & Deep Publication Pvt. Ltd
 Bernard Berelson & Gary A. Steiner, Human Behaviour; An inventory of Scientific Findings (N.Y.
Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964)

ARTICLES

 Evolution and development of the right to information act in India

 Source - www.legalserviceindia.com

 Quest Journals Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science Volume 4 ~ Issue 9 (2016)

WEBSITES

 www.legalserviceindia.com
 www.humanrightsinitiative.org
 www.jstor.org.

26