LANDMARK DECISIONS

REGARDING RIGHT TO
INFORMATION
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950

• One of the earliest cases where the SC laid emphasis on

the people‘s right to know.

• The petitioner had challenged an order issued by the then

Government of Madras under Section 9(1-A) of the
Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949
imposing a ban on the circulation of
the petitioner‘s journal Cross Roads, was struck
down as voilative of the right to freedom of speech and
expression under Article19(1)(a).
Prabhu Dutt v. Union of India, 1982

• The Court held that there could be no reason for

refusing permission to the media to interview
prisoners on death row.

• Repeated violations of civil rights by the police and other

law enforcement agencies have compelled the Courts to
give directions to the concerned agencies for ensuring
transparency in their functioning.
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express
Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd., 1989

• Justice Mukharji recognized the right to know as

emanating from the right to life.

• The question which arose was whether Reliance

Petrochemicals Ltd. was entitled to an injunction
against Indian Express which had published an
article questioning there liability of the former‘s
debenture issue.
• The learned Judge observed:
– We must remember that the people at large have a right to
know in order to be able to take part in a participatory
development in the industrial life and democracy. Right to
know is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in
the broader horizon of the right to live in this age on our land
under Article 21 of our Constitution. That right has reached
new dimensions and urgency. That right puts greater
responsibility upon those who take upon themselves the
responsibility to inform.
Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL, 1995

• The SC, while considering the scope of Article 19(1)(a)

in the context of advertising or commercial speech, held
that the public has a right to receive information.

• The question which arose in that case was whether

advertisements being for commercial gain could avail of
the protection guaranteed under Article 19(l)(a).
• The SC held:

 Advertising as a ‘commercial speech’ has two faces.

 Advertising which is no more than a commercial transaction, is nonetheless

dissemination of information regarding the product advertised.

 Public at large is benefited by the information made available through the

advertisements.

 In a democratic economy free flow of commercial information is

indispensable.

 There cannot be honest and economical marketing by the public at

large without being educated by the information disseminated through
advertisements.

 The economic system in a democracy would be handicapped without their

being freedom of ‘commercial speech.’
• Examined from another angle, the public at large has a right to receive the
‘commercial speech.’

• Article 19(1)(a) not only guarantees freedom of speech and expression, it

also protects the rights of an individual to listen, read and receive the said
speech.

• So far as the economic needs of a citizen are concerned, their fulfillment

has to be guided by the information disseminated through the
advertisements.

• The protection of Article19(l)(a) is available to the speaker as well as to the

recipient of the speech.

• The recipient of ‘commercial speech’ may be having much deeper interest in the
advertisement than the businessman who is behind the publication.

• An advertisement giving information regarding a life-saving drug may be of

much more importance to general public than to the advertiser who may be
having purely a trade consideration.
Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, 1997

• Which concerned the questions of the disclosure of the Vohra

Committee Report, the SC once again acknowledged the
importance of open Government in a participative democracy.

• The Court observed that:

– In modern Constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a
right to know about the affairs of the Government which,
having been elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies of
governance aimed at their welfare.

• It went on to observe that,

‘democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of a free society
and the sunlight is a disinfectant.’
Indira Jaising v. Registrar General, SC of India

• A Senior Advocate practicing in the SC filed a petition demanding

the publication of the inquiry report.

• The Court declined disclosure with a reasoning that is difficult

to reconcile with its own bold pronouncements in the past:

– A report made on such inquiry if given publicity will

only lead to more harm than good to the institution as judges
would prefer to face inquiry leading to impeachment.

– In such a case the only course open to the parties concerned if they have
material is to invoke the provisions of Article 124 or Article 217 of the
Constitution, as the case may be.
• The said report is only for the purpose of satisfaction of the Chief
Justice of India that such a report has been made.

• It is purely preliminary in nature, ad hoc and not final ...the

only source and authority by which the Chief Justice can exercise
this power of inquiry is moral or ethical and not in exercise of
powers under any law.

• Exercise of such power of the Chief Justice of India based on

moral authority cannot be made the subject- matter of a writ
petition to disclose a report made to him.
Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India

• The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the right to information
acquires great significance in the context of elections.

• It is now common knowledge that there is criminalization of

politics in India.

• It is a matter of great concern that anti-social and criminals are

seeking to enter the political arena through the mechanisms of
elections to State Legislatures and even to Parliament.

• Parliament has not yet been able o enact a law to uproot this evil.
• In this scenario, the Delhi High Court has sought to cleanse the
electoral process through the mechanism of the right to know of
the people and laid down certain conditions which the apex Court
also agreed on appeal.

• The apex Court went on to say that one-sided information,

disinformation, mis-information and non-information will
equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes
democracy a farce.

• Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and

receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2007

• It was held that right to know and right to access information is

implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed
under Article 19(1) (a).

• The right to information has both intrinsic and instrumental

value.

• Its intrinsic value comes from the fact that citizens have a right to
know.

• It is a crucial step towards a deeper, more meaningful democracy.

• More tangibly, in a country like India it
can promote action for development and therefore has
considerable instrumental value.

• Information enables people to make enlightened choices, and

keep tabs on elected representatives and officials who claim to
act on their collective behalf.

• Thus, accountability and transparency are both enhanced radically.

PUCL v. Union of India

• Section 14 of POTA the obligation to furnish information

was held to be intra-vires Articles 14, 19, 20(3) and 21.

• Neither a lawyer can claim professional

communication beyond what is permitted under section
126 of Indian Evidence Act, nor is there any law
permitting a newspaper or a journalist to withhold
relevant information from Courts, nor can withholding
of such information be traced to the right to privacy,
which itself is not an absolute right.
Landmark Judgments by Central
Information Commission
CIC asks UPSC to show marks to Civil Services
aspirants.
• The CIC directed the Union Public Services Commission
(UPSC) to declare individual marks scored by 2,400
candidates appeared for the Civil Services Preliminary
examinations in 2006 and ordered it to declare cut-off
marks for each subject (CIC/WB order, November 13,
2006)
Record management to be improved by all public authorities.

• In the case of Paramveer Singh vs Punjab University, the

applicant applied for information regarding the merit list for
selection of candidates to a particular post in the university.

• However, no proper information was provided

(CIC/OK/A/2006/00016, 15/6/06).

Judgment:
• The Commission held that
every public authority, must take all measures in pursuance of
Section 4(1) (a), to implement efficient record management
systems in their offices so that the requests for information can be
dealt promptly and accurately.
Property statements filed by civil servants are not confidential
information.

• Shyam Yadav vs Department of Personnel Training, the

applicant had sought details of property statements filed by
bureaucrats(CIC/WB/A/2009/000669, June 17, 2009).

Judgment
• The Commission held
that property statements filed by civil servants are not
confidential and information can be disclosed after taking the
views of concerned officials as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Set guidelines for redressing the grievances of citizens: decision
given by CIC.

• Ram Bhaj vs Delhi government, the appellant has sought

information about whether the guidelines issued by the
Department of Personnel and Training regarding disposal of public
grievances with a specific time frame have been notified by the
Delhi government (CIC/SG/A/2010/000537+000538/7492,April
19, 2010).

Judgment
• CIC directed the Delhi government to inform the common man
about the timeframe required to redress their grievances.
CRITICISMS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION
IN INDIA
• The Act has been criticized on several grounds.

• It provides for information on demand, so to speak, but does not

sufficiently stress information on matters related to food, water,
environment and other survival needs that must be given pro-
actively, or suo moto, by public authorities.

• The Act does not emphasize active intervention in educating

people about their right to access information “vital in a country
with high levels of illiteracy and poverty”
or the promotion of a culture of openness within official
structures.
• Without widespread education and awareness about the
possibilities under the new Act, it
could just remain on paper.

• The Act also reinforces the controlling role of the

government official, who retains wide discretionary
powers to withhold information.
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING RTI
• Access to information law’s
should provide clear guidance to public servants as to how to
respond to requests when the information is not held by the
public body even if it relates to its functions and responsibilities.

• If information does not exist, public officials should be

prepared to inform the requester.

• Such responses are a key part of open government and can form
the basis of constructive dialogue between the administration and
the public about the type of information needed in order to
improve government efficiency and increase the quality of
decision making and policymaking.
• Public authorities should have the duty to inform the
information commissioner or similar oversight body of
instances when requests were refused for lack of
information.

• Such requirements are particularly important in

transitional and developing countries like ours where
information management can be deficient.
• Establishing indexes of the information held by
particular bodies, and making these indexes public can greatly
assist information officers in rapid retrieval of information upon
receipt of a request, or in quick identification of the nonexistence
of information.

• Such indexes should also list the titles of documents subject to

classification under other laws, in order to facilitate requests for
these documents and review of the necessity of the classification
according to the standards established by the access to information
law..

• Proactive transparency and the posting of materials on government

websites facilitates access to information, but cannot in them self
guarantee the right of access to information.
• At a minimum, where requesters do have Internet access, officials
should provide exact URLs, a service which entails little effort and
no expense.

• Homepages are not sufficient.

• Where requesters do not have Internet access, the

government body must print out the relevant pages and provide
them to the requesters (charging any standard copying costs
provided for by law).

• Such obligations should be clearly stated in relevant legislation

and guidelines
• A standard part of training in any access to information
regime is to ensure that public officials understand the
presumption of openness, and that exemptions can only
be applied when information harms a protected interest
and is not overridden by a public interest.

• Public officials must be aware that refusals can only be

written—never oral—and must state the relevant
exemptions that justify refusal.
• Information officers, or their equivalent, should have the
authority to decide on information disclosure.

• Information should only be denied following a

transparent internal review process that includes senior
officials to ensure that exemptions have been properly
applied.
• The national legislature, an information commission or
commissioner, or other monitoring bodies or officials charged with
overseeing implementation of access to information laws should,
in a timely manner, review the
issuance, by public bodies and bodies performing public functions,
of written refusals for requests for information to ensure that
exemptions are being applied appropriately and that denials of
requests are not being based upon inappropriate fees, demands to
clarify requests, inquiries as to why the information is being
requested, etc.
• Access to information training
at public bodies should include instruction in the partial
release, or “severing” of documents, to ensure that non-
harmful information in classified documents can enter
into the public domain.
CONCLUSION

• RTI is a powerful tool that can deliver significant social benefits.

• It can provide a strong support to democracy and promote good

governance, by empowering the Citizen’s ability to participate
effectively and hold government officials accountable.

• Rather than just providing information, RTI Act in most of the

countries has served to be an effective watchdog ensuring all
those coming in purview of the Act to work in accordance with
rules and regulations, without any irregularities.
• However, stricter implementation of this law requires not
only political will but also active civil societies, RTI
activists and few key democratic features, such as
respect for the rule of law.

• Currently, the RTI Act in India is passing through a

decisive phase, much more needs to be done to facilitate
its growth and development.

• Mere protest against the lack of implementation of this

law alone is not sufficient, one needs to encourage this
initiative taken, for the law to grow and mature.
• Thus it can be concluded that citizens have a right
to information and right to know about public
affairs and governmental functioning.

• The legislature, realizing the need and urgency of

this requirement, has shown its sensitivity
and positive attitude by conferring upon citizens
of India various statutory rights, which advance
the Right to information and expand its horizons
to the deserving limits.