In this article we have talked about the RTI (Right to Information) act. This act, has given the people, the power to CHANGE the country. The RTI act has made the inner working of the Govt. transparent! If YOU, the average citizen learns to use this act, YOU can change the country.
In this article, we have told you everything that you need to know about the RTI Act, how you can use it, how it affects you etc! Even if you know nothing about “politics” or “laws” do not worry. This article is written in a very simple and easy to understand way keeping the lay man in mind.
If you think that the RTI Act does not affect you, "YOU ARE WRONG!" If you are a citizen of Indian, the RTI Act has given you a lot of
power
that
you
can
and
must
use.
For example, next time you ask for a “phone line” or a “water connection”, if you use the RTI Act, you can get your work done quickly. You will not have to make 15 trips to the Govt. offices and bribe and beg the officials to get your work done. RTI has changed all that. Though this article we will show you how to use RTI, to get your work done!
Are the roads outside your house terrible, RTI will help you solve the problem. Is there a problem of un-hygiene in your area,
RTI
will
help
you
solve
your
problem.
If you are young and cannot appreciate all the above points, then believe us that sooner or later you will have to go and get some of your work done though Govt. offices. When you do, you will appreciate the power RTI. But, by then it will be too
late.
Why? Because there is talk about RTI being changed so that the power is taken away from the people. In this article we have showed you how you can fight this and support RTI.
Basically, if you are an Indian, YOU MUST read this! Not only that, do tell as many people as you can to also read this. Do this for your country! Now, in the next section we shall try to understand what the RTI Act is all about...
0 Bihar shows the way in RTI Helpline Will Empower People, Bring Accountability Arun Kumar Das | TNN New Delhi: Bihar's black marks can take a back seat for now. It is now a shining example to other states as it becomes the first state to introduce a helpline service for RTI applicants. Now, instead of writing an application for seeking information under the RTI Act and submitting it to concerned departments, all one has to do is dial a number where an attendant processes the request and sends an application to the concerned official. A duplicate copy is forwarded to the district magistrate through email followed by a fax message. A copy of the application will be delivered at the caller's address within three days. Plus, the caller will be given a special number for follow-up action, says A Subhani, secretary, personnel, Bihar. A Rs 10 RTI application fee will be added to the telephone call charge. This helpline will be launched in coordination with an NGO, Parivartan. Bihar CM Nitish Kumar says, ''The RTI helpline will be launched to empower people and bring transparency as well as accountability in the administration. It will be operational from Monday and all necessary arrangements are being completed.'' The CM adds, ''It was found that though many people wanted to file RTI applications, they weren't able to do so due to the technicalities involved. While in some cases, officials were found unavailable, some offices were located in far away places. But the new call centre service will save the common man from the nitty-gritty problems of RTI application. It's the responsibility of the call centre to redress the grievance.'' Asked if launching this helpline would open a Pandora's Box in a problematic state like Bihar, the CM says, ''People have a right to know about the fate of ongoing projects, reasons for delay, amount spent, status of loan applications, etc. Besides, empowering the people, I hope the helpline acts as a deterrent against corruption.'' The job has been outsourced to a call centre called Jankari which is provided with 12 parallel lines. ''The decision to outsource the job was a conscious one. This way, there'll be no interference while receiving applications,'' says Chanchal Kumar, special secretary to the CM. He is monitoring the helpline service.
un Jaitley The constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression is the repository of the right to information — not the 2005 Act, which is an instrument laying down the statutory procedure in the exercise of this right. It follows that all exceptions, exemptions, and denials of the right to information must necessarily conform to Article 19 (2). The Government must drop in its entirety its present proposal to amend the Act.
THE CURRENT debate with regard to the width of the Right to Information (RTI) has thrown up certain interesting issues for an informed national debate. The key question in the current debate evolves around the desirability of making notings on various files pub lic. The Central Information Commission had interpreted the Right to Information Act, 2005 to include a citizen's right to get copies/inspection of file notings containing advices and opinions given by various civil servants. The United Progressive Alliance Government, on the contrary, has argued that this right was never included in the Act and that it is now willing to confer a limited right with regard to social sector expenditure and projects only and not with regard to other areas of governance. The proponents of the liberal view have argued that information, as defined under the Act, includes opinions and advices and is therefore broad enough to cover file notings. Fil e notings are essentially to understand not merely the fairness of the decision but also the decision-making process. Contrarian viewpoints upon consideration of which the Government decides become clear once the decision-making process is made public. If merely the final decision is conveyed, the rationale and l ogic behind the decision may not become apparent. Any unfair influence or collateral considerations in decision-making will not be known. The reasons why a more logical point has been overruled will never be known. The right to information will itself be incomplete without notings and observations on various files given by officials being made public. In our system of governance, we expect the civil services to advise the p olitical executive freely and objectively. It will have to be made known why in certain cases this professional advice has not been accepted. Governments are expected to act fairly and rationally. All actions must be i nformed by reason. Decisions must necessarily be in the public interest and not suffer the vice of arbitrariness. Supporters of the conservative view, on the other hand, have sought to contend that the original Act never conferred the right to know the notings, advices, and opinions. The proposed amendment reaffirms that position with an exception that decisions relating to various social sectors would now be made more transparent. The civil service has consistently been advising the political executive that since it is under an obligation to advise the political executive correctly and objectively, the prospect of a public gaze on its advice would deter it from taking strong positions on various issues. If bureaucratic notings are to be made public, officials would tend to be non-committal; or at times they would merely place alternative viewpoints before the decision-making authority for its direction. Governance may suffer on this count. In order to analyse this issue, it is necessary to examine the source of the right to information. Is the source of this right to information merely the Right to Information Act, 2005 — or is it a right that emanates from the constitutional guarantees itself? The Constitution guarantees, under Article 19(1)(a), to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression. The only reasonable restrictions on this fundamental right are those which have a nexus to the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with various States, public order, decency or morality; or relate to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The freedom of speech and expression is a preferred right even among the fundamental rights. Its curtailment cannot be on any generalised public interest but only on grounds laid down by law with nexus to the specific circumstances mentioned in Article 19(2). In order to exercise the freedom of speech and expression effectively, you need an informed public opinion. The right to knowledge includes the right to information. The right to information thus flows out of freedom of speech and expression. The Right to Information
Act, 2005 is not the repository of the right to information. Its repository is the constitutional right to free speech and expression. The Right to Information Act is merely an instrument that lays down the statutory procedure in the exercise of this right. It is, therefore, necessary that all exceptions and denials or exemptions and denials of the right to information must necessarily conform to restrictions that bear a nexus to those mentioned in Article 19 (2) and to none others. The veteran Socialist leader, Raj Narain, in his election case against Indira Gandhi sought the production of documents dealing with prime ministerial security. The state wanted to withhold the information on the ground of privilege. The Supreme Court observed in 1975: "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 publi c way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all i ts bearing. The 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 n o repercussion on public security." This chain of thought continued in the Judges Case of 1982 where it was reaffirmed that India could be no exception to the democratic culture of open society: "The concept of an open government is a direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)." In the Airways case the Court reaffirmed in 1995 that "the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to acquire information and to disseminate it." Excessive taxation that constitutes an unbearable burden on the right to disseminate information has now been regarded in liberal democracies as "tax on knowledge." The very essence of the two judgments of the Supreme Court making it mandatory for candidates to disclose certain information while contesting elections are based on a citizen's right to information, which is guaranteed as a derivative right of free speech. The two election cases have set to rest the possibilit y of any conflicting constitutional opinion. The law declared in India is thus clear. The right to information is now recognised as a necessary component of free expression. It has been elevated to a level of constitutional guarantee. The exercise of this right is through a process which is laid down in the Ri ght to Information Act. Any blanket bar on disclosure of opinions, advices, and notings on the fi les could run foul of the constitutional guarantees. It is obvious that the civil service is uncomfortable with the public disclosure of notings. A very large number of political activists, including myself, have at one point of time seen some merit in the argument of the civil service. There may be some rationale in the argument that the civil service as trained presently will resist offering candid advice if such advice is exposed to the public gaze. This could be an administrative argument against openness. At the same time, one cannot ignore the problem that governmental decisions lack the appearance of fairness. At times, they are actuated by collateral and even corrupt considerations. Just as judicial review has been a deterrent against arbitrary decisionmaking, the prospects of transparency and public gaze will necessarily compel decisionmaking authorities to record relevant reasons and to ensure that decisions are fair and appear to be fair. In a society that suffers the curse of both arbitrariness and corruption, sunlight could be the best disinfectant. The advantages of transparency are far too many. Public interest in
transparency will override the relative discomfort of the civil service against public disclosure. It is this overweighing public interest that has persuaded media opinion, public opinion, and even parliamentary opinion to scoring in favour of greater transparency. In any case, it may be difficult for the Government with the evolution of constitutional law to contend today that advices and opinions can still be kept as secret. There is another aspect of the Act that requires reconsideration. Even though the rules under the law require a person claiming the right to documents and opinion to pay for its cost, Section 7(9) exempts the government from providing information that will "divert the resources of public authority." This ground, among others, has been used to deny documents in a recent case relating to making public the documents and correspondence between the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Crown Prosecution Service in London in relation to Ottavio Quattrocchi's case. If the deployment of some manpower and the cost of xeroxing a few pages is going to be cited as a ground for the denial of information, it will render the provisions of Section 7(9) suspect. The Government would do well to drop altogether its present proposal to amend the Act. Its exercise should be primarily confined to ensuring that the provisions of the existing Act conform entirely to constitutional guarantees. (The author, a Member of the Rajya Sabha and senior Supreme Court lawyer, is general secretary of the BJP. He is a former Union Minister whose portfolios have included commerce, industry, law, disinvestment, and information & broadcasting.) Printer friendly page Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
Opinion ince June 2005, when Right to Information Act, was passed, it has been hailed as the hallmark of democracy for the reasons that it purports to make, as regards government information, disclosure the norm and secrecy as the exception. Experts feel that as the Act aims at making the government transparent and more accountable, the effective use of it would, in a long run, curb corruption. But is this really the truth? With administrators and legislators, who are always in an attempt to narrow the scope and applicability of the Act, in the past one year the Act has seen more controversies than success stories. From parliamentary debate relating to exclusion of file notings to army’s refusal to grant information, it is evident that the ‘right to information’, as a statutory right, has served as a puppet in the hands of our rulers. There is, therefore, a need felt for a superior and more dynamic right. In this article, I analyze the reasons as to why right to information need to have been included in Part III of the Constitution, to be granted as a fundamental right rather than a statutory right. This would have kept the constant attacks the right suffers at the hands of the politicians at bay. Ideal Status Of Right To Information: The ideal status the right to information deserves is that of a fundamental right under our C onstitution .With the Constitutional guarantee to conform to, the Act could have been used as an instrument constituting the requisite authorities, apart from laying down the quintessential exceptions to granting information, such as national security and parliamentary privilege.
Right To Information Recognized As A Fundamental Right By The Judiciary: At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the Supreme Court, in State of U.P v. Raj Narain - a 1974 case, recognized the ‘right to know’ as a right inherent in Fundamental Right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Following this, a plethora of cases the right to information was recognized as a right implicit in the article 19(1)(a) and in article 21 (fundamental right to life and personal liberty). In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. U nion of India , the Supreme Court observed that in Right of information is a facet of the freedom of ‘speech and expression’ as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Right of information, thus, indisputably is a fundamental right. However, every time the Constitution is amended, the ‘basic structure’ test laid down in Keshavanada Bharti Case has to be satisfied. The test provides that a constitutional amendment should not be in derogation of the basic features of the Constitution like judicial review, democracy or Rule of Law. While including the right to information is as a fundamental right, if at all there is any effect on any of the basic structure it would be in the nature of strengthening the democracy and making it progressive, as envisaged by the makers of our Constitution. Need For The Fundamental Right Status: The nature of problems the Act has faced till date ranges from administrative interpretation against the grant of requested information, to ordinary and easy amendment to reduce the scope of the Act. I feel, the above problems would not have arisen had the right been a fundamental right. Let us now analyse the problems case-wise to understand my reasoning. 1. Exclusion of ‘File Notings’ From the Purview of the RTI Act: In December 2005, the Central Go vernment, for the first time, floated the idea to excluding ‘file notings’ from the scope of the Act by bringing about an amendment to the Act. File notings is an important public document containing details of the decision making process in any public matter - such as who said what and who rejected whose view and on what grounds before a decision was reached in government. It also includes the official correspondence between officers in pursuance of a government scheme or project.
The news created uproar, with activists opining that the accountability of the government would remain only in paper with such exclusion. The matter was then put to rest with the Prime Minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh’s statement against the exclusion. However, today the matter is back in news. As on date, the Union Cabinet has approved the Amendment Bill to the Act, that when passed will exempt file notings as information that can be demanded as a matter of right. 2. Indian Army’s Recent Refusal to Grant Information: Again in December 2005, the Indian Army refused to provide information to an applicant on the ground that issues of national security were involved in the requested information. This was in spite of the Army not being one of the eighteen agencies that are exempted under the Act, by virtue of section.24. But when the PM intervened and insisted that Army cannot refuse until a government notification to that effect, the army retracted its stand.
Could It Have Been Avoided? The above mentioned controversies has brought out into the open, the hard facts. T he spineless politicians are going to amend the Act as and when they like it, suiting their needs of the day; the officers are going be complacent and hesitant in giving the information. Had right to information been a Constitutional provision, the fear of PILs would have kept a check on the notoriety of the parliamentarians and authorities. Conclusion: Thus, it is evident the issues such as those illustrated above could have been avoided had right to information been a fundamental right under the Constitution. Ideally, the legislature should have brought about a constitutional amendment to include the right to information as a fundamental right and the Act should have merely constituted the Information Commissions and appointed the Public Information Officers. With the separate government agency to
tackle the problems relating to the fundamental right to information, the evils of bureaucratic pressures and whimsical administrative interpretations could have been kept at bay and democracy celebrated. Inclusion of right to information as a fundamental right would have also been in conformity with the decisio ns of the apex court. Therefore, though India has finally woken up to realize that right to information is a key component in the attainment of economic, social and political rights of an individual as well as the community at large, in my opinion, the step she has taken towards it could have been more effective had she guaranteed a fundamental right to information to its citizenry.
Written By : Abhinav Srivastava - II Semester, B.A. LL.B (Hons.), National Law University, Jodhpur 'Information' as a term has been derived from the Latin words 'Formation' and 'Forma' which means giving shape to something and forming a pattern respectively. Information adds something new to our awareness and removes the vagueness of our ideas. Information is Power, and as the Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee stated, "The Government wants to share power with the humblest; it wants to empower the weakest. It is precisely because of this reason that the Right to Information has to be ensured for all." The Freedom of Information Bill 2000 was introduced in the parliament on 25th July 2000, there have been earlier instances where a proposition of the similar subject has been moved into the house, and this traces back to as early as in 1 966 when the Press Council of India prepared the draft bill in order to secure the right to information then again in 1997 The Institute of Rural Development, Hyder abad also prepared a bill, both these bill had initiated a debate on the national level and a working group was constituted which was to look in to the validity and the constitutionality of the bill. The report of this working group recommended that the right to information is not only feasible but also vital. The Working Group recommended that the bill should be named as Freedom of Information Bill as the Right to Information has already been judicially recognized as a part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression. Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental rights to free speech and expression. The prerequisite for enjoying this right is knowledge and information. The absence of authentic information on matters of public interest will only encourage wild rumors and speculations and avoidable allegations against individuals and institutions. Therefore, the Right to Information becomes a constitutional right, being an aspect of the right to free speech and expression which includes the right to receive and collect information. This will also help the citizens perform their fundamental duties as set out in Article 51A of the Constitution. A fully informed citizen will certainly be better equipped for the performance of these duties. Thus, access to information would assist citizens in fulfilling these obligations. The Freedom of Information Bill 2000, stated mainly of access to the information by the p ublic in almost all the governmental proceedings, it was proposed mainly in order to secure transparency in the government. In the democracy the best form o f government or the go od government is possible with the utmost level of transparency. National Stability is achieved when the public has full faith in their representatives because in the past 55 years of democracy in India, it has witnessed certain major ups and downs and one of the major cause of this wa s due to lack of transparency. Another essential aspect that is been eating up our country politically, socially and economically is the increasing level of corruption, now-adays even a peon is corrupt, this however does not imply that due to passing of the bill of the right to information would reduce the quantum of corruption at all levels but it definitely reduce the quantum of corruption at the higher levels because though corruption at all level is harmful but then the magnitude of corruption differs at d ifferent levels and the magnitude is much higher at the high levels. Of recent the Taj corridor scam including the Chief Minister, the Cabinet Minister (of the state), and high officials of the state government of a particular state were involved in the misappropriation of amount running into hundreds of crores. All this took place due to lack of transparency and the general public and the other concerned authorities were devoid of any information and nor that this has been the only scam in the his tory of our country,
there have been various scams and most of them have been tried and have not seen the light of the day. The Right to Information has already received judicial recognition as a part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression. An Act is needed to provide a statutory frame work for this right. This law will lay down the procedure for translating this right into reality. Information is indispensable for the functioning of a true democracy. People have to be kept informed about current affairs and broad issues political, social and economic. Free exchange of ideas and free debate are essentially desirable for the Government of a free country. In this Age of Information, its value as a critical factor in socio -cultural, economic and political development is being increasingly felt. In a fast developing country like India, availability of information needs to be assured in the fastest and simplest form possible. This is important because every developmental process depends on the availability of information. Right to know is also closely linked with other basic rights such as freedom of speech and expression and right to education. Its independent existence as an attribute of liberty cannot be disputed. Viewed from this angle, information or knowledge becomes an important resource. An equitable access to this resource must be guaranteed. Soli Sorabjee stressing on the need of Right to Information aim at bringing transparency in administration and public life, s ays, "Lack of transparency was one of the main causes for all pervading corruption and Right to Information would lead to openness, accountability and integrity". According to Mr. P.B. Sawant, "the barrier to information is the single most cause responsible for corruption in society. It facilitates clandestine deals, arbitrary decisions, manipulations and embezzlements. Transparency in dealings, with their every detail exposed to the public view, should go a long way in curtailing corruption in public life." This issue of the right to information is not a new concept it has already been taken up by one of the most prominent figures of our county Aruna Roy former Magsaysay Award winner and an IAS officer along with many eminent personalities such as columnist Ajit Bhattacharjee, lawyer Prashant Bhushan, environmentalist and teacher Shekhar Singh, writer Kuldip Nayar, activist Dunu Roy and Arvind Kejriwal of Parivartan. They feel that availability of information helps in the good governance of the country. On one of the occasions i n Delhi while Ms. Roy presented a piece of it read as follows, "We demand that the National Right to Information Act be passed immediately. The Act should be people-friendly and any information relevant to ordinary citizens should not be deemed an official secret. It should provide for punitive measures against non-complying officials. This will e mpower democratic processes and people's participation in governance" Simultaneously very significant development has taken place. The demand for Right to Information has taken the form of mass movement at the grass root level. A mass based organization called the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) took an initiative to lead the people in a very backward region of Rajasthan - Bhim T ehsil- to assert their right to information by asking for copies of bills and vouchers and names of persons who have been paid wages mentioned in muster rolls on the construction of schools, dispensaries, small dams and community centers. On paper such development projects were all completed, but it was common knowledge of the villagers that there was gross misappropriation of funds with roofless school buildings, dispensaries without walls, dams left incomplete and community centres having no doors and windows. After years of knocking at officials' doors and despite the usual apathy of the State government, MKSS succeeded in getting photocopies of certain relevant documents. Misappropriation of funds was clearly obvious. In some cases, the muster rolls contained names of persons who either did not exist at all or died years before. T his incident is more than sufficient to show the importance of the ability of information for eradicating mal-practices. With so many scandals emerging from time to time, it becomes vital for the management of public fund and survival of democracy. MKSS organised a Jan Sunwai (People's hearing), the first e ver in the history of Rajasthan. Politicians, administrators, landless labourers, private contractors were all invited to listen, respond and, if willing, to defend themselves. Popular response was phenomenal, but village officials and politicians stayed away and remained silent, and thereby weakened their position and darkened their image. Between December 1994 and April 1995, several other public hearings were organized. People's anger made one engineer of the State Electricity Board to return in public an amount of Rs.15,000 he had extracted from a poor farmer. This grass root movement is fast spreading to other areas of Rajasthan and to other States establishing firmly that information is power and people should have the right to official information. In early 1989, the then the Prime Minister Mr. VP Singh declared the attitude of the new Government on the Right to Information and
transparent government. He said, "An open system of governance is an essential prerequisite for the fullest flowering of democracy. Free flow of information from the Government to the people will not only create an enlightened and informed public opinion but also render those in authority accountable. In the recent past, we have witnessed many distortions in our information system The veil of secrecy was lowered many a time not in the interest of national security, but to shield the guilty, vested interests or gross errors of judgments. The refore, the National Front Government has decided to make the Right to Information a Fundamental Right.... A large area of information dissemination also relates to development programmes, their progress and their impact. This will need to be done at the Pan chayat and Municipal levels, not only to encourage multi-level planning but also the common man in the villages." Till now we have analyzed the situation from the side of the people only one question that is to be dealt with is that what i s the harm in providing the information to the people the government can score high even if it passes this bill with certain restrictions, but then an important aspect that is to be kept in mind is that when the public has access to the important information then the nations sovereignty and integrity is at stake. We have seen in recent past that information which is mere necessary as to follow the model rules of conduct for gaining entry in the parliament of our country had posed major threat to the most important landmark of our country. The government takes a major risk by revealing the information because first of all the Official Secrets Code Act, 1923 prohibits this and thus it is legislatively unconstitutional. The government can not possibly give information about its strategic sector and also the economic policy. There needs to be a line of demarcation between Official secrets and the information to be given to public. There need to be a balance between the Official Secrets code Act and the Right to Information. Now the question arises that due to these recent upheavals about securing the right to information, what all information should be made public, now this is a very complicated task as there are certain avenues which fall in the category that whether information regarding then should be made public or no because the government may be in danger from both the ends. An example for this could be the Fiscal Policy of the government because that may lead to unfair practices by certain market players. Thus it is utmost necessary that the government must strike a balance between the Official Secrets and the i nformation to be delivered to the public. Strategic sectors have to be kept outside the purview of delivering the information to the public. Now a debate has b een cropping up that there is a vast scale privatizing of the public sector, there has been privatizing of certain necessary services that were i nitially instituted for only public welfare schemes. Hospitals, educational institutes and even many transportation systems being privatized, there arises the need to make them transparent. The main fundamental principle of a private sector is to maximize their profits and for this many of these private players forget their business ethics and thus it is the public who has to suffer. Hence it is important to make information regarding these sectors available to the public as one of the essentials of the democracy is to ensure social and public welfare. The need for Right to Information has been widely felt in all sectors of the country and this has also received judicial recognition through some landmark judgements of Indian courts. A Supreme Court judgement delivered by Mr. Justice Mathew is considered a landmark. In his judgement in the state of UP vs. R aj Narain (1975) case, Justice Mathew rules-In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the p ublic 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. But the legislative wing of the State did not respond to it by enacting suitable legislation for protecting the right of the people. According to Attorney General Soli Sorabjee - It was in 1982 that the right to know matured to the status of a constitutional right in the celebrated case of S P Gupta vs. Union of India (AIR) 1982 SC (149), popularly known as Judges case. Here again the claim for privilege was laid before the court by the Government of India in respect of the disclosure of certain documents. The Supreme Court by a ge nerous interpretation of the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression elevated the right to know and the right to information to the status of a fundamental right, on the p rinciple that certain unarticulated rights are i mmanent and implicit in the enumerated guarantees. The court declared - The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under article 19 (1) (a). The Supreme Court of India has emphasized in the SP Gupta case (1982) that open Government is the new de mocratic culture of an open society towards which every liberal democracy is moving and our country should be no exception. In a country like India which is committed to
socialistic pattern of society, right to know becomes a necessity for the poor, ignorant and illiterate masses. In 1986, the Bombay High Court followed the SP Gupta judgement in the well-known case Bombay Environmental Group and others vs. Pune Cantonment Board. The Bombay High Court distinguished between the ordinary citizen looking for information and groups of social activists. This was considered a landmark judgment concerning access to information. There are various states in India like Maharashtra etc which have adopted this right to information and they follow a simple clear cut laid out guidelines in order to secure the right to information to their citizens. One of the most fundamental aspect that this legislation should contain is that there needs to an utmost level of transparency, the government, if enacts this legislation it should not b e full of con ditions and ambiguity because that instead of bringing about the level of trust and faith in the public exchequer will instead create a sense of insecurity in the public. The government is free to decide as to what all avenues are not to be disclosed and a ccordingly in the short title of the said act, this must be made clear. The act must not be full of the "ifs" and the "buts" and nor it should have a condition allotted with every sub -clause. The act should be made keeping in the mind the mental framework of the public and also it should be made in order to cater to the public to secure its trust in the government agencies. Thus all that can be said about this right of securing the right to information is that it is a very necessary legislation and the government must enact this legislation in order to secure the high levels of transparency in the affairs of the government and realize and gi ve the true meaning of the word democracy. s
