This article was written by Prayrana Singh and further updated by Monesh Mehndiratta. The present article explains in detail the case of the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019). It provides the brief facts of the case, the issues involved therein, the judgement of the court along with different opinions of judges, the law applied and a critical analysis of the case. It also explains in brief the importance of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the relation of the right to know to other fundamental rights by explaining the landmark judgements in this regard. 

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

Do you know that you can question the government, its functionaries and other public authorities about their actions?

Do you know that you can make them accountable for their actions and decisions?

Yes, you read it right. You can do so. 

This is because you have a ‘right to know’ that has been duly recognised by the Constitution and even separate legislation has been enacted in this regard. The right to know is one of the tools to foster transparency and accountability in the country. Since the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ or the ‘RTI Act, 2005′), the right has been widely recognised and used by citizens, as the Act provides a proper mechanism and procedure to seek information from the authorities. However, it also provides certain information as an exemption that cannot be requested by anyone. 

The present case of the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subash Chandra Agarwal (2019) is one such case. The respondent in this case sought certain information and the appellant denied the same, against which an appeal was preferred, whereby the appellants were directed to furnish the required information. The present appeal has been presented by the appellant against such a direction. The brief facts have been provided below in the article, along with issues, the judgement of the court consisting of the decisions and observations made by the court, and the concurrent view. The article also explains the law applied and provides a critical analysis. It further goes on to explain various landmark judgements on the Right to Information and other fundamental rights. 

Antecedents to the RTI Act

India, being a democratic country, practises universal adult franchise. One of the most important features of democracy is that people rule themselves. They elect their representatives, who then form the government for the smooth functioning of the country. The major power lies with the citizens and so they must be aware of the policies and other necessary information. In order to empower citizens and bring transparency, citizens have been given the ‘right to know’. 

The report of the Second Administration Reforms Commission in 2007 revealed that the right to information leads to good governance and further provided four essential parameters of good governance: 

1. Transparency
2. Accountability 
3. Predictability 
4. Participation 

So here, transparency and predictability are deeply interrelated and directly proportional to one another in the sense that when transparency increases, the skills of the people to predict will also increase. Transparency and accountability can increase the availability of government activities for public security. Transparency can only be maintained when the activities of the government are known to people and they can question them for their actions. A government should be such that it is open to the public and constructive for development. 

Aristotle, in his scientific work called “Metaphysics,”  started his work by saying, “All men by nature desire to know”. With this, Aristotle tried to explain that human beings are inquisitive by nature. This is the major factor that helps humans grow. This is the concept of the ‘right to know’. This includes the right to freedom of opinion and expression as well. Another philosopher switched to the transparency aspect. He said that the government’s actions and activities should be open to the public. Both the philosophers provided a similar notion that democratic government is for the people, of the people and by the people and no information available to the public officer should be kept behind the curtains. 

Ideas recognized for the extension of the right to participation led to the enhancement of various judgements and laws globally, which have led us to where we are now. The right to know is not an expressive right that is guaranteed under the Constitution. It is nowhere mentioned in any law book. The liberal interpretation of the right by the judges of the honourable Supreme Court has helped in making it a fundamental right of the citizens. 

Details of the case

Name of the case: Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal 

Citation: 2019 (16) SCALE 40, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459

Name of the Appellant: Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India.

Name of the respondent: Subhash Chandra Agarwal 

Name of the court: Supreme Court of India 

Bench: Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. 

Date of decision: November 13 November 2019. 

Laws involved: Articles 12, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 124 of the Indian Constitution and Sections 8 & 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.  

Brief facts of the case

The present case is a combination of three appeals arising from the denial of information under the RTI Act, 2005. The first appeal pertains to an application filed by the respondent under the RTI Act, seeking copies of correspondence exchanged between constitutional authorities along with file notings related to the appointment of Supreme Court judges. The appellant stated that the Registry of the Supreme Court does not deal with the appointment of judges and that these are done by the President of India in cases of higher judiciary. The first appeal was rejected by the first appellate authority on the ground that the information sought was not within the ambit of Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the Act. A secondary appeal was preferred by the respondent to the Central Information Commission (CIC), whereby the appellants were directed to provide the information asked by the respondent. Aggrieved by the order of CIC, the Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPIO’) of the Supreme Court moved to the Supreme Court and challenged the order under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 

The second appeal, known as the assets case, pertains to another application filed by the respondent. The respondent sought a copy of the resolution of Supreme Court judges, which required all the judges, be they sitting judges or future judges, to declare their assets of real estate or investments held in their names or the names of their spouses or any person dependent on them, upon assuming office, within reasonable time. He also asked for information pertaining to assets owned by the Chief Justices of states. Half of the information related to the copy of the resolution was provided to the respondent but the latter half was denied. The denial was on the grounds that the information was not held by the registry of the Supreme Court. Another reason for the denial, as stated, was that information is in the possession of the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts of the states. The first appellate authority remanded the matter to transfer the RTI application to the High Courts under Section 6(3) of the Act. However, the CPIO declined to transfer the same, stating that the respondent was well aware of the fact that the information sought is available with the distinct public authorities. Further, the CIC held in the second appeal that the information related to the judges of the Supreme Court was available with its registry, and so the appellant is under an obligation to provide the information under the RTI Act unless it is exempted by law. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant presented a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The single judge of the High Court held that the declaration of assets by the judges comes under the ambit of ‘information’ under the Act. It was further held that:

• The judges of the Supreme Court hold independent offices.
• There is no hierarchy in the judicial functions.
• Such information is not held in a fiduciary capacity by the Chief Justices of India.
• Information is not exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. 

The decision was later upheld by the full bench in a letter patent appeal. The same has been challenged by the appellant in the present appeal. The third and last appeal is also called the undue influence case. It is related to an RTI application filed by the respondent on the basis of a newspaper report. The application was made to seek information about the correspondence exchanged with the Chief Justices of India regarding the Union Minister, who has been accused of approaching a judge of the Madras High Court in order to influence a judicial decision. The respondent also asked for the name of the Union Minister, their lawyer and the steps taken against them for their actions. The appellant rejected the application on the ground that no such information was available with the registry of the Supreme Court. In the second appeal, the CIC directed the appellant to provide the information sought except for the recourse taken to the in-house procedure. This decision of the CIC has been further challenged by the Supreme Court in the present appeal. 

Issues involved in the case

• Whether the information sought can be prohibited due to independence of the judiciary.
• Whether the information sought amounts to interference in the functioning of the judiciary.
• Whether the information sought by the respondent will be furnished or not.
• Whether the information sought falls within the exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

Contentions of the parties

Arguments presented by appellant 

It was contested by the appellants that the information sought and its disclosure would impede the independence of judges. This is because it failed to recognise the unique position of the judiciary  as provided by the Constitution, necessitating that the judges not be subjected to any litigative public debate. Such insulation is constitutional, deliberate and essential for the effective functioning of the institution. The appellants further argued that the right to information is not an unfettered right but a right available within the framework of the RTI Act, indicating that the right is subjected to certain conditions, exclusions, and restrictions given in the Second Schedule and Sections 8 to 11 of the RTI Act. 

It was argued that the information related to assets owned amounts to personal information and has nothing to do with the public interest, thus being exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Similarly, information related to prospective candidates considered for appointments in the judiciary is personal information whose disclosure would lead to an unnecessary invasion of a person’s privacy. It was further contested that the information related to assets owned by judges is voluntarily declared by them to the Chief Justices of India and comes within the fiduciary capacity. With respect to the correspondence between the office of the Chief Justice of India and constitutional functionaries, it was contested that these were made on trust and confidence. Any information related to the appointment of judges is shared with the functionaries in a fiduciary capacity. This makes the information an exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. 

Arguments presented by respondent

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the disclosure of any information sought by him does not undermine the independence of the judiciary and relied on the State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) wherein the Apex Court held that people have the right to know about the actions and activities of governmental agencies and that it ensures transparency and accountability. The respondent contended that such disclosure would lead to openness and transparency, which would further result in securing the independence of the judiciary by placing frivolous activities attempting to influence the independence of the judiciary in the public domain. It was further argued that it is the legitimate and constitutional right of the citizens to seek information, thus pointing out that it is disclosure and not secrecy that enhances the independence of the judiciary. Regarding the nature of the information sought, it was argued that the disclosure would benefit the interests of the larger public, which outweighs the exemption given under the Act. Further, it was contested that in cases where any personal information is involved, the same can be decided and dealt with depending on the case. 

There exists no fiduciary relationship between the Chief Justice and other judges or among the constitutional functionaries that could prevent the disclosure of the information sought. The respondents relied on the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), wherein the Court held that the Act is intended to secure transparency and accountability in the working of public officials. Another case was Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015), wherein it was observed that any information that is in the public interest must be disclosed. It was argued in the case that it is the duty of public servants to act for the benefit of the public and not favour any other public servant. This also means that the Chief Justice and other functionaries are expected to perform their duties and not act in a fiduciary manner with anyone other than the public. Further, if there is any fiduciary relationship, the information can still be disclosed if it is in the public interest to do so. The respondents also contended that no exemption under the Act can be made or invoked on the basis of confidentiality and candour. 

Judgement of the court

Obiter dicta

The honourable Supreme Court held that the information pertaining to assets owned by judges neither amounts to personal information nor invades the right to privacy and thus, the judgement of the Delhi High Court in this regard was upheld. It was further held that the disclosure of such information would not infringe the right to privacy and the rule of fiduciary relationship is not applicable in this case. The other two appeals were remanded to the CPIO of the Supreme Court with a direction to examine the information sought according to the principles set forth in the present judgement. It was further held that the information sought under these appeals falls within the ambit of ‘third party information’, which requires notice to be issued to such parties before passing a final order and so the procedure prescribed under Section 11 must be followed. 

Ratio decidendi

In order to arrive at a decision, the honourable Supreme Court in this case considered whether the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India are different public authorities. It was observed that the Supreme Court is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act, while the Chief Justice of India is a competent authority. It was further observed that the Supreme Court, being a public authority, includes the  offices of the Chief Justice of India and other judges; hence, the two aren’t separate but a part and parcel of the Court as a body, authority and institution. This would also apply in the case of high courts and the judges therein. 

It was also observed that when any information is under the control of a public authority, the same must be furnished to the seeker under the Act. This must be done even if there are certain prohibitions in any other statute in force or the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The court also mentioned that Section 22 of the RTI Act is an overriding provision that unlocks prohibitions available in any prior enactment or statute on the right of citizens to access information accessible by a public authority. The court also observed the aim and objective of the RTI Act, which is to ensure transparency and accountability to make the democratic setup in India more participatory for which the Act gives a pragmatic and practical regime in order to secure greater access to information for people. This will also help in balancing diverse interests like efficient governance, optimum use of limited fiscal operations and preserving the confidentiality of sensitive information. 

About the fiduciary relationship, the court observed that the information that is available to the public authority regarding beneficiaries cannot be withheld or denied to them. Further, it was observed that such relationships must satisfy four conditions, whose emphasis is on the trust, reliance, dominant position and dependability of the beneficiary on the fiduciary, imposing responsibility on the fiduciary to act in good faith and for the benefit of the beneficiary. The court specifically observed that the relationship between the Chief Justice and judges does not amount to a fiduciary relationship but the same may arise in certain situations that have to be dealt with in accordance with the facts of the case. With respect to the right to privacy and the right to information, the court observed that someone’s absolute right to know may invade another’s privacy and breach confidentiality. Thus, there is a need to harmonise the right to know with personal privacy, confidentiality and effective governance. This is the reason the Act recognises exemptions under Sections 8 & 11. The Court further clarified that Section 11 is not procedural but substantive in nature and will be applicable when the PIO (Public Information Officer) has an intention to disclose information related to or supplied by a third party and is confidential in nature. The section requires a notice to be served to the third party by the PIO and the submissions made thereto must be considered while making a decision. 

Concurrent view of judges

Justice N.V. Ramana quoted that “In the domain of human rights, the right to privacy and the right to information have to be treated as co-equals and neither can take precedence over the other; rather, a balance needs to be struck”. It was observed that the present case required a balance to be created between two fundamental rights, i.e., the right to information and the right to privacy, that are usually in conflict with each other and that the two rights are faces of the same coin. Further, it was viewed that in order to decide such cases, the authority must first ascertain whether the information sought is private and has a reasonable expectation of privacy. For this, certain factors have to be considered:

• Nature of information,
• Impact on private life,
• Improper conduct,
• Criminality,
• Place where information is found,
• Claimants’ attributes,
• Effect on claimant
• Purpose for which the information is with the publishers,
• Nature and purpose of intrusion 

The next step is to decide whether the disclosure of the information sought is justified by public interest. This can be done by adopting a balance test. Further, while dealing with transparency and judicial independence along with the RTI Act, it was observed that there is a need to balance all three aspects. The judiciary has been able to maintain the trust of citizens on the basis of its independence. The following factors have to be considered while assessing the public interest:

• Nature of information,
• Consequences of non-disclosure i.e., risks and benefits,
• Types of confidential obligation,
• Reasonable suspicion and beliefs of confidant,
• Party seeking information,
• Manner to acquire the information,
• Public and private interest,
• Freedom of expression and proportionality. 

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that the information sought by the respondent in the present case is related to:

• Correspondence and file notings for appointment of judges to the Apex Court, 
• Declaration of assets by the judges,
• Nature of disciplinary proceedings against lawyer and the judge named in the newspaper report. 

While determining whether a particular piece of information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j), the following factors must be considered:

• Whether the information sought engages with the right to privacy and falls under the right to information.
• Specific heads of public interest favour disclosure of information and claims of specific privacy interests. 
• Justification for restricting the interests. 
• Application of the principle of proportionality in order to ensure no right has been abridged more than that required to fulfil the aim of countervailing a right. 

He further stated that the birth of the collegium is related to judicial interpretation. Citizens have used their right to information to seek information related to criteria governing the selection and appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. The Honourable Justice opined that the basis for the selection and appointment of judges must be defined and placed in the public domain and that this is in the public interest. The norms of judicial appointment were reiterated as follows:

• Evaluation of members of the bar and basis of such evaluation.
• Criteria applied:
  • Experience and nature of practice
  • Domain and area of specialisation,
  • Requirements of income,
  • Commitment, research and academic qualification
  • Social orientation is related to legal aid work. 

It was stressed that the present judgement does not define standards to be used for judicial appointments but that such standards must be available in the public domain, which would ultimately promote confidence in the public interest in the judiciary and its appointments. It will further foster transparency, promote accountability, fulfil the purpose of the RTI Act, enhance public confidence and measure against extraneous considerations in the process. 

Laws applied

Right to Information Act, 2005

In order to promote accountability and foster transparency in the country, the Right to Information Act, 2005, has been enacted. The Act provides a practical regime for the right to information and to secure access to information for citizens, whether withheld or under the control of public authorities. It also provides for the constitution of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs). This has been done to keep citizens informed and uphold the principles of transparency and accountability. It will further help in regulating corruption and holding governments and other instrumentalities accountable for their actions in the public interest. Apart from this, it also helps in harmonising the conflict of interests with the aim of preserving the paramountcy of democracy in society. 

Section 8 of the RTI Act

Section 8 of the Act provides a list of information exempt from disclosure to the public. These are:

• Information affecting the sovereignty and integrity of the country; security; strategic and economic interests of the State and relations with foreign states.
• Information specifically forbidden to be published by the court or tribunal and whose disclosure would amount to contempt.
• Information that would result in breach of parliamentary privilege or state legislatures.
• Information related to trade secrets, intellectual properties or commercial confidence could harm the competitive position of third parties unless it is in the public interest to disclose such information.
• Information is available due to the fiduciary relationship of a person, unless it is in the public interest to disclose such information.
• Information received from any foreign country is based on confidence. 
• Such information whose disclosure would endanger life or physical safety of a person.
• Information impeds investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
• Cabinet papers, which include records of deliberations of council, secretaries and other officers, are provided that they will be made available in the public domain only after the decision is taken and matter is complete.
• Information falling under the ambit of personal information has no relation to the public interest, whose disclosure would cause invasion of a person’s privacy. The only exception is the interest of the public at large. The section also provides that any information that cannot be denied to parliament or state legislatures will not be denied to a person seeking such information.

Section 11 of the RTI Act

Section 11 pertains to information related to third parties. Section 2(n) of the Act defines ‘third party’ as a person other than a citizen who is seeking information and includes a public authority under its ambit’. Section 11 provides that when a request to furnish information related to a third party or information to be supplied by such party is received by the CPIO or State Public Information Officer (SPIO), a written notice has to be served on such party within 5 days of receipt of the request, asking such a party to make submissions whether the information is disclosed or not. However, if the information relates to trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure can be done if the public interest outweighs any harm or injury to third parties. 

After receiving the notice from the CPIO or SPIO, the third party must be given an opportunity to represent against the disclosure within 10 days from the date of receipt of above-mentioned notice. The CPIO or SPIO  further has to decide whether the information requested will be disclosed or not within 40 days and notify the third party through a notice. The notice pertaining to the decision of the CPIO or SPIO given to the third party includes a statement that such a party can appeal against the decision under Section 19 of the Act. 

Critical analysis of the case

The above mentioned case pertains to the disclosure of certain information requested by the respondent through an RTI application. At the first stage, he was denied the information due to the reasons stated above, against which he filed an appeal in which the appellant was asked to disclose the information. The appellant appealed against the order directing them to disclose the information. The honourable Apex Court in this case clarified whether the information was related to personal information, thereby falling under the exemptions given in the Act. The court explained the meaning of certain terms like ‘personal information’ and ‘fiduciary relationship’ and whether the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India are separate public authorities. The Supreme Court, while applying the relevant provisions, interpreted the same and clarified the grey areas regarding their meaning and when the exemptions could be applied. 

The concurrent view given by Justice N.V. Ramana stressed that there is a need to create a balance between the right to know and the right to privacy, both of which are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This is indeed correct, as the two rights are interconnected and exercising one right may lead to interference with the other right. The RTI Act has been enacted to promote and foster accountability and transparency in the country, thereby giving the public the right to ask for information pertaining to the government and other related institutions. However, it also recognises personal information as an exemption because there might be a situation where a person asking for information might interfere with the privacy of another person if such information is disclosed. Thus, there is a need to draw a line. 

Another concurrent view given by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud pointed out the independence of the judiciary and its related functionaries. It was clarified that in order to maintain the public’s trust in the judiciary, it is necessary to disclose information related to judges, like their appointment, parameters, qualifications and cases, except their personal information, which has no relevance to the public interest. This will help in establishing the independence of the judiciary and gaining the confidence of the people. Apart from this, certain factors were provided in order to determine whether a particular piece of information amounts to personal information or not. The present case is a landmark, as it identified certain grey areas and clarified the same in order to remove any possible ambiguity and vagueness. 

Case laws relied upon

State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975)

Facts of the case

In this case, a person named Raj Narain filed an election petition before the High Court of Allahabad alleging that public finances have been misused by a political party in the reelection of the Prime Minister. He also summoned the government of Uttar Pradesh in order to produce a document called the Blue Book, which contained guidelines for the protection of the Prime Minister during his or her travel. However, an official of the Home Secretary of the state claimed a privilege of non-disclosure under Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court held that the blue book is not covered under the category of unpublished record and its disclosure cannot be prohibited on the ground that it is against public interest. An appeal was filed against the decision of the High Court in the Apex Court by the Government of U.P. in the present case.

Issues involved in the case

Whether the production of the blue books and information sought in the present case is against the public interest. 

Judgement of the court

The Supreme Court held that the rule of non-disclosure of records relating to the affairs of the state is of public concern and the same has to be applied. The court held that the courts can determine the impact of the disclosure of information on the public and so the High Court was directed to inspect whether the disclosure of Blue Book is injurious to public interest or not. For this, affidavits have to be filed by the concerned authorities. While deciding whether the book is a published or unpublished record, the court held that it cannot be considered a published government record merely because some of its parts have been disclosed, and so the fact that it contains any confidential information has to be taken into consideration.  

S.P. Gupta v. President of India & Ors. (1981)

Facts of the case

This case pertains to several writ petitions filed by lawyers and practitioners in 1981 against the order of the government regarding non-appointment of two judges. One of such petitions was filed by S.P. Gupta, the then Attorney in the High Court of Allahabad, in the Apex Court against the appointment of three additional judges in the High Court. However, the validity of these petitions was challenged by an advocate from the Ministry of Law and Justice, stating that no person has been harmed in any way because of the order of the government and that the appointment has been done for a short duration. Out of many issues, one pertained to the disclosure of information. 

Issues involved in the case

Whether the correspondence exchanged between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice of India will be disclosed or not?

Judgement of the case

The court rejected the arguments of respondents regarding the disclosure and held that if the disclosure negatively affects the public interest and is contrary to public policy, then only it must be withheld. If the disclosure is in the public interest, there is no reason to deny the information. The court further emphasised the obligation of the government to be answerable to the people for its actions and to promote accountability and transparency in its functioning. This is also related to Article 19 of the  Constitution of India, which states that transparency and accountability are essential for democracy, so people must have access to information. However, if the information relates to national security and integrity or harms the public interest, it must not be disclosed. The court held that the correspondence in the present case did not fall under the ambit of advice and so the correspondence must be disclosed as it is in the public interest.  

Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2013)

Facts of the case

In this case, a person filed an application seeking information related to the bank accounts of some members of society, which was denied. A complaint was filed by the applicant with the State Information Officer of Kerala. The society informed me that the information sought by the applicant was confidential in nature, had no relation to public activity and was held by the society in a fiduciary capacity. The State Information Commission (SIC) held that the society violated Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005. The order of the State Information Commission(SIC) was challenged before the single judge of the High Court by the cooperative society through a writ petition, in which it was held that the cooperative societies are public authorities under the RTI Act. The division bench held that it was a matter of fact, while the full bench answered it in the affirmative. 

Issues involved in the case

Whether a cooperative society established or registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, falls within the definition and category of ‘Public Authority’ under the RTI Act, 2005,.

Judgement of the court

The Apex Court in this case held that cooperative societies are not public authorities under the RTI Act, 2005. In order to determine the issue at hand, the court analysed whether the society falls within the ambit of ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and held that the societies do not come under the ambit of ‘state’ and further observed that a body does not come within the definition of public authority merely because it is regulated by a statute. The court in this case also tried to create a balance between the right to information and the right to privacy. It was held that if any information sought falls within the personal information category and has no relation to the public interest, the public authority or officer is not under an obligation to disclose such information. 

Conclusion

The RTI Act of 2005 has provided one of the most powerful weapons to the citizens of the country. It empowered people by acknowledging their right to know and giving them appropriate opportunities to seek information from the government, its functionaries and other authorities. This further makes them accountable for their actions, leading to responsible governance, which is an element of a democratic society. The right to know has been embedded in Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. However, separate legislation has helped improve the situation by providing proper mechanisms and procedures to seek information and approach the appropriate authorities in case of any dispute. 

The present case, by setting a landmark precedent, has settled the ambiguity in terms like personal information, fiduciary relationships, public authorities, etc. It has also provided certain factors that can be used to determine whether a piece of information amounts to personal information that can be referred to in future cases. Even though this separate legislation is in place, how many people are aware of their right to know and how many are using this legislation to seek information is a question. There is a need for every citizen to ask for information wherever required in order to hold the government and its functionaries accountable. This will also help in building a transparent relationship between the government and the citizens, promoting the principles of democracy. .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the time limit to get information under the RTI Act, 2005?

The usual time period within which the information has to be supplied to the applicant is 30 days. However, if the information is related to the life or liberty of a person, it has to be supplied within 48 days. 

What are the penalties for non-compliance with the RTI Act, 2005?

Section 20 of the Act specifies penalties for non-compliance with the Act. It provides a penalty for any information that has been malafidely denied to the applicant without any reasonable ground. The penalty for the same is Rs. 250 per day until the information is furnished and the penalty must not exceed Rs. 25,000. It further provides that if the PIO, CPIO or SPIO is at fault, disciplinary action can be taken against them. 

Can RTI be presented as evidence in Court?

Yes, it can be presented as secondary evidence in court as provided by Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The section provides that secondary evidence includes:

• Certified copies,
• Copies of the original, made by mechanical process,
• Copies made from the original or compared with it
• Counterparts of documents against the parties who did not execute them,
• Oral accounts of contents of any documents made by a person who has 

What are the common mistakes a lawyer or layman makes while filing an RTI application that lead to the rejection of the application?

The government office rejects your RTI on the basis that it consumes lots of time and resources to fetch the information. Lawyers or laymen usually make two mistakes:

• The first is that you need to know the proper address of the right office, from whom you want to actually seek the information.
• Second, keep your RTI as compressed as possible. It should contain specific points or questions but no words like ‘why’ or ‘what’. 

References

• When does a Private body become a Public authority under the RTI Act?, 3.1 JCLJ (2022) 1349.
• The Right to Information Act and Challenges ensuring Transparency and Participation, 4.2 JCLJ (2023) 843.
• A Decade of “The Right to Information Act, 2005” – Critical Exploration of the Scope and Impact of the Act, CNLU LJ (6) [2016-17] 200. 
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/11/13/breaking-office-of-cji-comes-under-the-purview-of-rti-sc/
• https://www.scribd.com/document/250726001/Registrar-Supreme-Court-v-Subhash-Chandra-Agarwal
• https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/is-the-rti-act-fulfilling-its-purpose/article66266153.ece
• https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/AC9CD2C7-B8AD-4C5A-B910-3751BFE5CB28.pdf
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/05/09/latest-judgments-of-supreme-court-and-high-courts-on-right-to-information-act/
• https://theamikusqriae.com/central-public-information-officer-supreme-court-of-india-v-subhash-chandra-agarwal/ 
• https://www.scribd.com/presentation/437389763/sp-gupta-v-union-of-india
• https://www.barandbench.com/columns/supreme-court-india-67-years
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/01/18/a-walk-down-the-memory-lane-on-sp-guptas-senior-advocate-90th-birthday/
• https://academic.oup.com/book/33450/chapter-abstract/287720221?redirectedFrom=fulltext