Right to Information.
Right to information is one of the basic rights available to citizens of India. With the
advancement of society, perspective of analyzing the world changes. It is duty of government
as well as judiciary to recognize and appreciate the changes in the pattern of society and
thereby amending the laws as per needs of present scenario.
A man can form rational opinion only when he is provided with all the necessary information.
Without information, opinions cannot be formed. An intellectual and healthy society emerges
if they are given basic information on how the system in which they are living is working.
Right to information:
Right to information is one of the basic rights available to citizens of India. With the
advancement of society, perspective of analyzing the world changes. It is duty of government
as well as judiciary to recognize and appreciate the changes in the pattern of society and
thereby amending the laws as per needs of present scenario.
A man can form rational opinion only when he is provided with all the necessary information.
Without information, opinions cannot be formed. An intellectual and healthy society emerges
if they are given basic information on how the system in which they are living is working.
Judicial trend on Right to Information :
English cases:
Griswold versus Connecticut 1965 US Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court observed that freedom of speech and expression includes not only the right to utterl or to print but also the right to read.
Time versus Hill 385 US 1967
The US Supreme Court of US found that the guarantees of freedom of speech and press are not for the benefit of press so much as for as benefit of all the people.
Indian Scenario:
The constitution of India has not mentioned freedom of information however the Indian judiciary has interpreted this right as an integral part of article 19 and 21.
Judicial trend on Right to Information before 2005:
Before the enactment of RTI Act 2005 Indian Judiciary had an important role to play in
relation to Right to Information.
In the case of Romesh Thapar versus state of Madras 1950
The Supreme Court has held that the freedom of the press is an essential component of a
thriving democracy and this right is not limited to newspapers but also to other vehicles of
information flow. The expression freedom of press has not been used in Article 19 but it is
comprehended within article 19(1)(a). The expression means freedom from interference from
authority which would have the effect of interference with the content and circulation of
newspapers.
In the case of Humdard dawakhana versus Union of India 1960
The supreme court held that Right to Information is a part of article 19(1)(a) of Indian
constitution. Although advertising is a means of expression, it's true character is
expressed in the object it is used to promote. It assumes the characteristics and elements
of the operation pursuant to article 19(1) that it intends to help in by bringing it to
public attention.
B.C. Coleman versus Union of India ,1973
The apex court observed that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution includes two fold rights: the right of citizen to speak and the right of the community to hear or know.
State of UP versus Raj Narayan, 1973
It was held that it is the responsibility of the government like ours where all public officials have to be accountable for their actions. It was held that people of this country have a right to know every public document and everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries.
Indian Express newspaper Private Limited versus Union of India ,1985
The supreme court observed that right to impart and receive information is a species of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the constitution.
Dinesh Trivedi MP versus Union of India 1997
It was held that to ensure the continued participation of people in the democratic process they must be kept informed of the participation of the people in the vital decision taken by the government. Democracy ,therefore expect openness and openness is complement of a free society.
Union of India versus Association of Democratic Republic, 2002
The Supreme Court of opined that democracy cannot survive without a free and fair election, without free and fair informed voters. Therefore the election commissioner was directed to exercises powers under Article 324 and call for some information from each candidate seeking election such as conviction or aquittal of any criminal offence, past assets of the candidate, educational qualification etc.
People Republic for civil liberties versus Union of India, 2004
It was held that right to information is a fundamental right under article 19(1)(a) of constitution. However the state under Article 19(2) of the Constitution is entitled to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the state.
Judicial development after enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005:
In India, the immediate reason for the enactment of RTI Act, 2005 was movement started by Majdur Kisan Shakti Sangathan which subsequently became a national movement. This Act is enacted with the specific intent of forming an informed citizenery, promoting transparency, accountability and checking corruption. RTI Act was passed by both the houses of parliament in May 2005 and received the assent of the then president APJ Abdul Kalam on June 15, 2005. Ultimately came into force on October 12, 2005.
Aadesh Kumar versus Union of India, 2014
It was held that the scheme of the RTI Act, its objectives and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non disclosure is the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold disclosure of information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 of RTI.
Shreya Singhal versus Union of India, 2015
It was held that the prohibition against the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult did not fall within any reasonable exceptions to the exercise of right to freedom of speech and expression. Based on reasons the supreme court invalidated section 66A of IT Act,2000 which violated the right to freedom of expression guarranted under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.
Swapnil Tripathi versus Supreme Court of India, 2018
It was held that the courts must also take the aid of technology to enhance the principle of open courts by moving beyond physical accessibility to virtual assessability. The court lead emphasis on live streaming of the court proceedings.
RK Jain versus CPIO, 2020
it was held that right to obtain access to information in the form of floppy
,video cassets or in any other electronic mode or through print outs where
such information is stored in computer or any device. Therefore denial of
accessible information in CD/DVD format under RTI act 2005 could not be
upheld by the central information commission.
