The Hindu Editorial Analysis
25 February 2025
The RTI is now the ‘right to deny information’
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 6)
Topic: GS 2: Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies
Context
- Citizens and the media must ensure the original Right to Information (RTI) Act is upheld.
- Distortions to the Act should not be tolerated.
Introduction
- The RTI Act was a hopeful initiative, empowering citizens to seek information from the government.
- It aimed to restore the concept of ‘swaraj’ (self-rule) to the people.
- The Act is recognized as one of the best transparency laws globally, intended to reduce corruption and promote accountability.
- However, its implementation has not met expectations, and the state of democracy remains concerning.
Erosion of the RTI Act
- Government Response:
- The government quickly recognized the RTI Act as a shift in power from bureaucrats to citizens.
- Attempts to amend the Act to weaken it were met with nationwide protests, leading to the withdrawal of those amendments.
Issues with Information Commissions
- Composition:
- Information Commissions were established as final authorities for RTI implementation.
- Many commissioners are retired bureaucrats who struggle to relinquish power to citizens.
- Selection processes often overlook candidates with a commitment to transparency.
- Case Disposal Rates:
- High Court judges dispose of over 2,500 cases annually, while RTI commissioners handle fewer cases, despite simpler complexities.
- Delays and Backlogs:
- The RTI Act mandates a 30-day response time, but many commissions face backlogs exceeding a year.
- This delay transforms the right to information into a right to history, discouraging ordinary citizens from pursuing their requests.
- Commissioners are often reluctant to enforce penal provisions, and government delays in appointing commissioners exacerbate backlogs.
Judicial Interpretation and Its Impact
- High Court Judgments:
- High Courts have emphasized that exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act should be interpreted strictly, protecting citizens’ fundamental rights.
- Supreme Court Ruling (2011):
- The Supreme Court clarified that Section 8 exemptions should not undermine the right to information.
- It warned against using RTI as a tool for obstruction or intimidation.
- This ruling has led to negative perceptions of RTI users and justified restrictions on information access.
The Personal Information Debate
- Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Case (2012):
- An RTI request for public servant disciplinary records was denied under Section 8(1)(j), which protects personal information unrelated to public interest.
- Court’s Interpretation:
- The court focused narrowly on personal information, neglecting the public interest aspect.
- It set a precedent for denying information based on personal privacy, undermining the RTI’s intent.
Consequences of Misinterpretation
- Legal Precedents:
- The Girish Ramchandra Deshpande ruling has been cited in multiple cases, effectively amending the RTI Act.
- It has contributed to a trend of denying information, termed the Right to Deny Information (RDI).
- Impact on Future Legislation:
- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act follows this precedent, further complicating the RTI framework.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
- Citizens and the media must advocate for the original RTI Act, resisting any distortions.
- Protecting this fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is crucial for democracy.