Right to Information (RTI) as ‘Right To Deny Information’

Syllabus: GS2/Government Policy & Interventions; Statutory Body

Context

• The Right to Information (RTI) Act was hailed as a revolutionary step towards transparency and accountability in governance.
  • However, over the years, the effectiveness of the RTI Act has been undermined, leading to concerns that it has transformed from a tool for transparency into a ‘right to deny information’.

About the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005

• The RTI Act recognized citizens as the rightful owners of government information and aimed to restore the concept of ‘swaraj’ (self-rule).
• It empowers citizens who seek information from public authorities, ensuring transparency and accountability in governance. 
• It provides a legal framework for individuals to access information related to government decisions, policies, and operations.

Key Features of the RTI Act

• Right to Access Information: Any citizen of India can request information from a public authority, which is obligated to provide a response within 30 days (or 48 hours in cases concerning life and liberty).
• Applicability: The Act applies to all levels of government—central, state, and local bodies, including government-funded NGOs and institutions.
• Public Information Officers (PIOs): Every government department must appoint PIOs to handle RTI requests and provide information.
• Appeal Mechanism: If an applicant is not satisfied with the response, they can appeal to the First Appellate Authority and then to the Central or State Information Commission.
• Penalties: Officials failing to provide information within the stipulated time or providing incorrect details can be fined up to ₹25,000.

Denial of Information Under RTI

• The RTI Act mandates that government agencies must disclose information unless it falls under specific exemptions listed in Section 8 & Section 9 of the Act. While these exemptions are necessary, they have increasingly been misused to withhold information that should otherwise be made public. These include:
  • National Security & Sovereignty (Section 8(1)(a)): Information that could affect India’s national security, strategic interests, or relations with foreign countries.
  • Personal Data & Privacy (Section 8(1)(j)): Information that invades an individual’s privacy without serving public interest.
  • Parliamentary Privilege & Cabinet Papers (Section 8(1)(i)): Internal deliberations, discussions, and unpublished cabinet papers.
  • Commercial Confidence & Trade Secrets (Section 8(1)(d)): Information that affects competitive business interests.
  • Ongoing Investigations & Law Enforcement (Section 8(1)(h)): Information that could obstruct investigations or trials.

Reality: How RTI Is Denied?

• Vague and Arbitrary Exemptions: Government officials often misuse Section 8 to reject applications without clear justification.
  • Information unrelated to security or trade secrets is still denied under vague excuses.
• Delays & Resistance from Bureaucracy: RTI Act mandates a 30-day response time, but authorities often delay responses indefinitely.
  • Many information commissioners, often retired bureaucrats, were reluctant to empower citizens and viewed their roles as post-retirement sinecures.
  • Some Public Information Officers (PIOs) ignore applications or provide incomplete information.
• Weak Enforcement of Penal Provisions: The RTI Act includes provisions for penalizing officers who deny information.
  • However, many commissioners hesitate to impose penalties, leading to a lack of accountability.
• Misuse of ‘Third Party’ Clause: Authorities reject RTI requests citing third-party confidentiality, even when public interest is involved.
• Amendment Weakening RTI Act (2019): It gave the government power to fix the tenure and salary of the CIC and SICs, reducing their independence.
• Increasing Rejection by the PMO & Key Ministries: Reports suggest that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and other critical ministries have increased RTI rejections in recent years.
• Harassment & Intimidation of RTI Activists: Over 100 RTI activists have been attacked or killed for exposing corruption, discouraging citizens from using RTI.

Case Studies: How Information Is Denied?

• Electoral Bonds & Political Funding: RTI applications seeking details on electoral bonds were denied under national interest, despite concerns over political funding opacity.
• COVID-19 Data: During the pandemic, RTIs requesting details about vaccine procurement, pricing, and expenditure were rejected under commercial confidence.
• Judiciary & RTI: The Supreme Court initially resisted coming under RTI and later selectively disclosed information.
  • The Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling emphasized that Section 8 exemptions should not undermine the right to information, but it also warned against using RTI as a tool for obstruction or intimidation.
• Pegasus Spyware Investigation: RTI requests about the use of Pegasus spyware for surveillance were denied under national security claims.

Way Forward: Strengthening RTI

• Stricter Penalties for Wrongful Denial: Officials who misuse exemptions should face penalties.
• Time-Bound Appeals & Accountability: Cases should be resolved within 60 days to prevent indefinite delays.
• Whistleblower Protection: RTI activists should have legal protection against threats.
• Independent RTI Bodies: Information Commissioners should be free from political control.
• Public Awareness & Digital RTI: More citizens should be trained to file RTIs effectively.

Conclusion

• The transformation of the RTI Act from a tool for transparency to a “right to deny information” is a concerning development. 
• To restore the effectiveness of the RTI Act, it is essential to address the challenges of bureaucratic resistance, delays, and weak enforcement. 
• Strengthening the RTI mechanism and ensuring timely and accurate responses to information requests will be crucial for promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

Source: TH