UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

The project report on the topic

“RIGHT TO KNOW”

Is submitted in fulfilment of the requirement of the syllabus of

BA LL.B.(Hons.) 3rd semester syllabus

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Prof.Rattan Harleen Kaur
BA. LL.B (Hons.)
Roll No.-58
Section - A
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Knowledge is in the end based on acknowledgement.

I pay my deep sense of gratitude to Dr.Rajinder Kaur (Director) of University Institute of Legal
Studies, Punjab University, Chandigarh to encourage me to the highest peak and giving me the
opportunity to prepare the project. I would like to convey my deep appreciation to my teacher
Prof.Rattan for his valuable suggestions and encouragement in completion of my project. Any
attempt at any level can’t be satisfactorily completed without the support and guidance of my
parents and friends.
 CONTENTS

 Introduction
 Right To Know- A fundamental right
 Right To Information
 Exceptions To Right To Information
 Freedom of Information Act,2002
 Voter’s Right To Know
 Right To Information Act, 2005
 Conclusion
 RIGHT TO KNOW

INTRODUCTION

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience,
above all liberties”.

-John Milton

It is very important in a democratic society that people have access to information held by
public authority. Democracy is that form of government which is of the people, for the
people and by the people. In this type of government, the people who have chosen the
representatives to govern the country did not have any right to know about the public
policies until people have right to know under the umbrella article-21 i.e. right to life and
personal liberty. But this is available only in a limited sense. It neither bind to public
authorities and nor it prescribes any punishment for not providing any information to the
common people. For a genuine democracy it is essential that information is available at each
and every level for common people without any discrimination. Our constitution provides us
the freedom to speech and expression under article 19(1) (a). To fulfil the requirement of
right to know and right to obtain information from public authorities Right to Information
Act, 2005 was enacted. By using this right it is possible to insure good governance and get
our rights

RIGHT TO KNOW-A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

The ‘Right to Know’ furnished under the Right To Information Act 2005 (RTI Act)  is not a
mere statutory right, but it is treated as a facet of the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an efficient contrivance in the
hands of people which would assist them become more informed. The main objective of this
revolutionary piece of legislation was to promote transparency and accountability in the
working of any public regime so as to strengthen core constitutional values of a democratic

republic. The enforcement of this legislation in our country has further transformed our

country into a participatory democracy from a representative democracy. Ordinary men

now feel that there is nothing to hide in the affairs of government. All are held accountable
to people who are masters of their domain.

The right to know, to receive and to impart information has been recognized within the right
to freedom of speech and expression. A citizen has a fundamental right to use the best
means of imparting and receiving information and as such to have an access to telecasting
for the purpose. The right to know has, however, not yet extended to the extent of
invalidating Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 which prohibits disclosure of certain
official documents. Even, Right to Information Act 2005, which specially talks about
peoples’ right to ask information from Government official, prohibits discloser of certain
documents under Art 8 of the Act. These exceptions are generally the grounds of reasonable
restrictions over freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) of Constitution of
India. One can conclude that ‘right to information is nothing but one small limb of right of
speech and expression.

In S.P. Gupta v. U.O.I1, case decided by Justice Bhagwati, the Supreme Court of India
rejected the government’s claim for protection against disclosure and directed the Union of
India to disclose the documents containing the correspondence. An open and effective
participatory democracy requires accountability and access to information by the public
about the functioning of the government. Exposure to the public gaze in an open
government will ensure a clean and healthy administration and is a powerful check against
oppression, corruption, and misuse or abuse of authority. The concept of an open
government is the direct emanation from the right to know, which is implicit in the right to
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution.
Therefore, the disclosure of information in regard to government functioning must be the
rule and secrecy the exception, justified only where the strictest requirement of public
interest demands it.
1
. 30 December, 1981

Equivalent citations: AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365
Freedom of speech and expression is the bulwark of democratic government.  This freedom
is essential for the proper functioning of democratic process and is regarded as the first
condition of liberty.  It occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of liberties giving
protection to all other liberties.  It has been truly said that it is the mother of all other
liberties.  That liberty includes the right to acquire information and disseminate the same.  It
includes the right to communicate it through available media without interference to as
large a population of the country, as well as abroad, as is possible to reach.  Right to know is
the basis right of the citizens of a free country and Art. 19(1) (a) protects that right.  Right to
receive information springs from Art 19(1) (a).
 In 1976, in the case of Raj Narain vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Supreme Court held
that the Right to information will be treated as a fundamental right under article 19. The
apex court ruled that in a democratic government, people are the masters and have the
right to know how the government works.
Justice Mathew ruled in the Raj Narain case, “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 their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the
particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. Their right to know, which is derived
from the concept of freedom of speech, 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.”

2
. 24 January, 1975

Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333

 EXCEPTIONS TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

-The government would be entitled to withhold information relating to

 International relations
 National security and public safety
 Investigation, detection and prevention of crime
 Internal deliberations of the government
 Information received in confidence from a source outside the government
 Information , if disclosed, would violate the privacy of individual
 Information of economic nature
 Information which is subject to a claim of legal professional privilege
 Information about scientific discoveries

Right to Information has turned out to be a great check on the executives, this is said to be
strong case for extending the Act, two sectors like the judiciary that remained insulated
from it. Though some of the judges were in favour of voluntary disclosure of the assets by
the Supreme Court judges, the chief justice of India had resisted the judges inclusion in the
right to information. The honorable chief justice of India has expressed recently that he
would resist “tooth nail” any attempt to share “confidential” information about
appointments and
transfer of the judges and instead that the office of chief justice of India be kept outside the
Preview of right to information.

On 2nd September, 2009, a chamber of Delhi high court had given a land mark ruling that
the information on assets declared by the Supreme Court judges in possession of chief
justice of India would come within the ambit of right to information Act, 2005.
Since the chief justice of India held the Information pertaining to Assets declaration by him
and his brother judges, the chief justice of India was held to be a “Public Authority”3 under
the right to information Act, 2005. The ruling deserves to be lauded because it will promote
transparency and accountability. If the judges support the Right to information like

3
“Public authority” is defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It states: “public authority” means any authority or
body or institution of self- government established or constituted— (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any
other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government
organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
made by state legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and
includes any— (i) body owned,
voluntarily assets disclosure, it would go a long way in enhancing their moral
stature ,empower the people and give a fillip to the movement of the right to know within
the meaning of Art-19 (1)(a) .

THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 2002

For decades, the Indian Supreme Court has recognised the freedom to access information as 
a constitutionally protected fundamental right. State governments have been leading
the way in enacting legislation that lays out the basis for putting the right into practice since
1997.There was no such law adopted by the state governments at the time that encouraged
Citizens  to use their constitutional right to seek information from the High Court /
Supreme Court.People should not be expected to file a lawsuit in the High Court and/or Supr
eme
 Court every time they need basic information from their government. As a result, the enact
ment was proposed.
-The main objective of the act was to make a common people friendly method which
enables common citizens to access information by the Public Information officer on the
request of person desirous of obtaining it, on the payment of the prescribed fee. However if
the information is related to the third party, he must be given an opportunity of personal
hearing to get his submission ,whether he treats it as confidential or not.
The Freedom of Speech and Expression also includes the consumer’s right to be aware of
the ingredients used in the production of food products, cosmetics and drugs, so that he can
make the right choice according to his beliefs and opinions.

OAZIR HUSAIN V. UNION OF INDIA4- Taking cognizance of the freedom of expression as

enshrined in Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Article 10(2) of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Delhi High Court declared that the
packaging of products including food, drugs (except those that are life-saving) and cosmetics
must contain information regarding the items’ vegetarian or non-vegetarian origins. Any

4
. 13 November, 2002

Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 Delhi 103, 101 (2002) DLT 229
article of food that contains whole or part of an animal, but not including milk or milk
products as an ingredient, must be identified by a brown circle within a square outline.
Likewise, all vegetarian food is to be identified by the presence of a green circle within a
green square outline. The rationale behind this judgement was that a citizen’s freedom of
expression also extended to his/her food choices and hence, this ruling would enable
citizens to make informed choices about the products they consume.

PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW ANTECEDENTS OF THEIR ELECTION

CANDIDATES: - Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees the right to speak and express oneself
has been held to include the voter’s speech or expression, in case of elections, in democracy. It
has been said that voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote.

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms 5- In this case, the Court was
considering the amplitude and width of the right to information about the candidates
contesting elections to the Parliament or State Legislature in the context of the citizen’s
right to vote. The Court in dealing with the issue at hand held that under the Indian
Constitution, electors had a fundamental right to know the antecedents of candidates
contesting elections to hold public office. The court read in ‘right to be informed’ as a right
flowing from freedom of speech and expression. The Election Commission was directed to
secure affidavits by candidates recording all particulars relating to past or pending criminal
charges or cases against them. This included information as to whether the candidate was
convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past. Additionally, if
convicted, the quantum of punishment that was awarded; and whether prior to six months
of filing of nomination, the candidate was accused of an offence punishable with minimum
two years of imprisonment. Since this judgment, the disclosures of criminal antecedents,
educational qualifications and assets have been made mandatory under Representation of
People's Act, 1951.

5
. 2002 (3) scr 294
The Apex court ruled that right of a voter to know the bio data of candidate was the
foundation of democracy, a facet of the right to freedom of speech and expression. It would
be the basis of free and fair election which was the basic structure of constitution.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

RTI act 2005 is a law enacted by the parliament of India, giving citizens of India access to
records of the central government and state governments. The act is one among the
foremost important acts which empowers ordinary citizens to question the
government and its working. This has been widely used by the citizens and media to
uncover corruption, progress in government work, expenses related information, etc.
Under the provisions of this act, any citizen may request to have access to the information
from the public authority and that public authority is required to give their reply within
thirty days. Every public authority is thus required to computerize their records for wide
circulation so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for the information in a
formal manner.

CONCLUSION: - The right to know is not intended to satisfy useless curiosity or mere
curiosity, but is essential to the effective functioning of democracy. Transparency and
accountability are essential in a real democracy. Jeffosen said: “Information to the people is
the safest and most legitimate engine of government. If a government refuses to trust the
people, the people will withdraw their trust from the people.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
 J.N Panday, Constitutional Law of India, p.1(Central law agency,
Allahabad, 1969
 Kumar Narendra, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad Law Agency,
Karkhana Bagh, Mathura Road, Faridabad(Haryana), 2016.

WEBSITES
 https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/s-p-gupta-v-union-of-india/
#:~:text=Decision%20Overview,the%20documents%20containing%20the
%20correspondence. Visited 20th October 2021
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1743/Right-to-Know-Constitutional-
Prospective.html#:~:text=Right%20to%20know%20is%20the,right%20to%20access
%20towards%20information.&text=But%20it%20is%20also%20requisite,be
%20effectively%20enjoyed%20by%20all. Visited 20th October 2021
 https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2017/oct/19/right-to-know-a-facet-
of-fundamental-right-1677702.html Visited 21st October 2021
 https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/constitutional-
perspective-on-the-right-to-know-constitutional-law-essay.php Visited 21st October
2021
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/295123/ Visited 21st October 2021