UNIT-I

Syllabus
u Historical development of Freedom of Information in Sweden, USA & UK.
u Right to Information before Right to Information Act, 2005 in India.
u Significance in democracy;
u Constitutional basis;
u Supreme Court on right to information.

Question no 1
Discuss the historical development of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in
India.
Introduction
§ In a democratic country, every citizen of the nation contributes to the Government
treasury by paying direct or indirect taxes. Therefore, they have right to know the utility
of the money contributed by them into the nation's treasury.
§ The Government employees and bureaucrats are paid salary from the Government
treasury; therefore, they are trustees of the public respective public offices and
responsible to inform the account on their part Nowadays, in some of the cases, the
fund is transferred to NGOs and voluntarily organizations for an activity in the interest
of the public at large.
§ Therefore, all such institutions also become responsible to give accounts of the same
for good governance and transparency. Right to know or Right to Information is a right
to know the working affairs of the office, except protected by law'
§ In recent years, there has been an almost unstoppable global trend towards recognition
of the right to information by countries, inter-governmental organizations, civil
societies and the people. The right to information has been recognized as a fundamental
human right, which upholds the inherent dignity of all human beings. The right to
information forms the crucial underpinning of participatory democracy. It is essential
to ensure accountability and good governance.
§ The access of the citizen to information and the responsiveness of Government to
community needs are the basic necessities to bring right to information. On the other
hand, all the information cannot be disclosed, so it is necessary to put some restrictions
on access to such information. Without information, people cannot adequately exercise
their rights as citizens or make informed choices.

Historical development of Freedom of Information in Sweden, USA & UK

§ The concept of right to information has a unique history when looked in the global
perspective. Different countries of the world have adopted this law to make their
Government responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people.
§ In fact, the history of right to information is as old as the history of evolution of the
concept of civil rights and civil liberties. While civil rights focused on ideal of equality

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 1

 under laws, the concept of civil liberties emphasized on the ideal of freedom, which
may be social, economic, religious, political, trade related etc.
§ Legislative history of Anglo-American countries reveals that civil rights and civil
liberties were recognized as an indispensable part of philosophic doctrines as early as
17th and 18th century. They had their origin in the Christian doctrines of natural rights,
which emphasized on equality of man and freedom of conscience. The Declaration of
Independence of 1776 (U.S.) was essentially based on the ideas of natural rights and
civil liberties.
§ After the French Revolution. the declaration of the rights of man became a cardinal
principle of constitutional law and most European countries incorporated these rights
in their Constitution.
§ The origin of the modern right to information was traced far back in Sweden, where the
Freedom of Press Act of 1766 guaranteed public access to Government documents.
This Act is widely considered as the oldest piece of freedom of information legislation
in the world.

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA

§ Several States of America, adopted Bill of Rights finally, leading to Bill of Rights of
1791 which formed the fundamental rule of democratic governance in United States.
§ First Amendment : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
§ Efforts first initiated by Representative John Moss in 1955 brought together politicians,
journalists, attorneys and civil society organizations
§ FOIA faced strong opposition from the President's administration and the Department
of Justice (DOJ) and the United States legal and law enforcement department.
§ Bipartisan support of the bill was strong which led to its enactment.
§ In the United States of America, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted
in 1966.
§ USA had passed a freedom of information law in 1967.
§ The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives any person the right to request access
to records of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. The records
requested must be disclosed unless they are protected by one or more of the exempt
categories of information found in the FOIA.
§ Records that, generally, may be protected from disclosure are: Properly classified
material; limited kinds of purely internal matters; matters exempt from disclosure by
other statutes; trade secrets or commercial or financial information obtained from a
person and privileged or confidential; internal agency communications that represent
the deliberative, pre- decisional process, attorney work product, or attorney-client
records; information that would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
law enforcement records to the extent that one of six specific harms could result from
disclosure; bank examination records; and oil well and similar information.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 2

 § In Texas vs. Johnson, Johnson poured kerosene on an American flag and burned it
during protesting by him and a group of political activists. Johnson argued that burning
the American flag was symbolic speech and protected by the First Amendment. The
Court ruled in favour of Johnson and symbolic speech no matter how offensive to some
is protected under First Amendment.
§ In NewYork times co vs. Sullivan, An advertisement in NewYork times included
statements, some of them false about actions that Alabama police had taken against
civil rights demonstrators. Sullivan who supervised the police brought libel action
against the newspapers and civil rights leader. The Court held that right to publish all
statements is protected under First Amendment. The Court also said in order to prove
libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual
malice that is with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

UNITED KINGDOM
§ Article 10 of Human Rights Act, 1998 states that everyone has right to hold your own
opinions and to express them freely without government interference and subject to
restrictions such as national security, public safety, prevention of crime, protection of
heath and reputation.
§ The importance of freedom of expression in English law can be ascertained by the
observation of Lord Steyn in the case of R. v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department Ex P. Simms, (2000)1:"Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy.
The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate. It acts as a brake on
the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the
governance and administration of justice of the country."
§ In 1960s - first demand for a law on access to information by lawyers, journalists,
academics, and members of the two main parties or members of smaller parties
§ In 1984 - Campaign for Freedom of Information- coalition between the two groups.
§ The government first published proposals for freedom of information in 1997. In the
white paper Your Right to Know, the government explained that the aim was a more
open government based on mutual trust.
§ Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state. This White Paper
marks a watershed in the relationship between the government and people of the United
Kingdom.
§ England enacted the Freedom of Information Act, 2005. The UK passed its own
Freedom of Information Act in 2000 and it was brought into force in 2005.

Historical Background of Right to Information Act, 2005

§ Objections to the Official Secrets Act, 1923, were raised in 1948, when the Press Laws
Enquiry Committee recommended certain amendments.
§ In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that right to know' is an integral part of right to
freedom of speech and expression.
§ In 1977, a Working Group was formed by the Government to look into the possibilities
of amending the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Unfortunately, the Working Group did not

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 3

 recommend changes in the Act, as it felt that the Act is related to the protection of
national safety and did not prevent release of any information in the public interest,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
§ In 1989, a Committee was set up by then Prime Minister, Shri V.P. Singh, National
Front Government, which recommended limiting the areas where Government
information should be hidden and opening up of all other spheres of information. This
Government stressed on the importance of Right to Information as a legislated right but
there was no legislation followed from these recommendations.
§ In 1993, a draft on Right to Information was proposed by the Consumer Education and
Research Council, Ahmedabad (CERC). It was drafted in line with international
standards, it gave right to information to anyone, except "alien enemies', whether or not
they were citizens. It required public agencies at the central and state levels to maintain
their records in good order, to provide a directory of all records under their control, to
promote the computerization of records in interconnected networks, and to publish all
laws, regulations, guidelines, circulars related to or issued by Government departments
and any information concerning welfare schemes. The draft provided for the outright
repeal of the Official Secrets Act. This draft didn't make it through Parliament either.
§ In 1996, the Press Council of India headed by Justice P. B. Sawant presented a draft
model law on the right to information to the Government of India. The draft affirmed
the right of every citizen to information from any public body. Significantly, the term
'public body' included not only the State, but also all privately-owned undertakings,
non-statutory authorities, companies and other bodies whose activities affect the public
interest. Information that cannot be denied to Parliament or State Legislatures cannot
be denied to a citizen either. The draft also provided for penalty clauses for defaulting
authorities. Unfortunately, none of the draft laws were seriously considered by the
Government.
§ Meanwhile in 1990s, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) began by attempting
to understand root causes and reasons for the non-payment of wages to the workers
employed by the government on works under departments including the public works
department. In the search for these reasons, the MKSS found that any information they
asked for was denied to them.
§ Therefore, MKSS started a grassroots campaign for right to information, demanding
information concerning development works in rural Rajasthan. On 6th April, 1996, the
MKSS announced a strike in the town of Bewar in Ajmer, Rajasthan, which continued
for 44 days. The right to information campaign in India began to bring in transparency
in village accounts via the demand for minimum wages in rural India.
§ Ghost entries in muster rolls were a sign of rampant corruption in the system, which
prompted MKSS to demand official information recorded in government files. From
very modest beginning in the villages of Rajasthan, the success of MKSS has been a
source of inspiration for activists in India and throughout the world. It led to the genesis
of a broader discourse on the right to information in India. The National Campaign for
People's Right to Information (NCPRI) formed in the late 1990s became a broad-based
platform for action.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 4

 § In 1997, a Conference of Chief Ministers resolved that the Central and State
Governments will work together on transparency and the right to information.
Following this, the Central and State Government agreed to take immediate steps, in
consultation with the States, to introduce freedom of information legislation, along with
amendments to the Official Secrets Act and the Indian Evidence Act, before the end of
1997, The Central and State Governments also agreed to a number of other measures
to promote openness. These included establishing of accessible computerized
information Centre to provide information to the public on essential services, and
speeding up ongoing efforts to computerize Government operations.
§ As a result of this Conference, Goa and Tamil Nadu in 1997, Rajasthan and Karnataka
in 2000, Delhi in 2001, Assam and Maharashtra in 2002, Madhya Pradesh in 2003 and
Jammu and Kashmir in 2004 had passed their State Freedom of Information Act.

History of RTI Act 2005 in India: Evolution

§ On the other hand, the Government of India appointed a working group, headed by
former bureaucrat and consumer rights activist Mr. H.D. Shourie, to draft what was
reworked into the Freedom of Information Bill, 2000. This Bill had included some
provisions that were not in the earlier draft, such as the requirement that urgent requests
in cases involving life and liberty should get response within 48 hours. However, this
Bill was criticized on several grounds.
§ Restrictions on information relating to security, foreign policy, defense, law
enforcement and public safety are standard. But, this Bill also excluded Cabinet papers,
including records of the Council of Ministers, secretaries and other officials, which
effectively shields the whole process of decision-making from mandatory disclosure.
§ The Bill provided for a fee to access information, but without specifying what is the
minimum or maximum amounts would be. Most important, there was no mechanism to
punish delay or refusal to grant information. So there was no compulsion on the official
concerned to provide answers. Instead, the law provided for two internal appeals within
the Government machinery and, in addition, blocks access to civil courts.
§ The Freedom of Information Bill, 2000 was introduced in Parliament in 2002, which
was passed in December 2002 and received Presidential asset in January 2003, as the
Freedom of Information Act, 2002.
§ Unfortunately, it was never notified by the Government. Therefore, a public interest
litigation pursued by Advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the NCPRI and Centre
for Public Interest Litigation, tried to compel the Government to notify an effective the
Freedom of Information Act, 2002 immediately.
§ The Supreme Court ordered Central Government on 20th July, 2004, to set a deadline
to advise when the Act will be notified and if not, when interim Administrative
Guidelines would be issued. In the interim, on 12 August, 2004, the Department of
Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions finally
released Draft Rules under the Freedom of Information Act, 2002. Unfortunately, a date
for the Bill coming into force was never notified, such that it never actually came into
operation. However, it was considered weak and to ensure greater and more effective

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 5

 access to information, the need was felt to make it more progressive, participatory and
meaningful. Meanwhile, two other PILs were filed before the Supreme Court to pass
an order for proper implementation of Right to Information Act.
§ In May 2004, UPA Government came into power at the Centre. The national campaign
for right to information received a major boost when the UPA Government's Common
Minimum Programme promised that the Right to Information Act will be made more
progressive, participatory and meaningful. The National Advisory Council (NAC) was
set up to oversee implementation of the Government's Common Minimum Programme.
Since its inception, the NAC has taken a close interest in RTI.
§ The Right to Information Bill 2004 (RTI Bill 2004) was tabled in the Lok Sabha on
23rd December, 2004; which was referred by Parliament to the Department Related
Standing Committee. The Report of the Committee (including a proposed amended
version of the Right to Information Bill) was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 21st March
2005. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)'s tabulated and running text
analysis on the report's highlighted the recommendations to change the Right to
Information Bill 2004 made by the Committee.
§ On 10th May, 2005, the Right to Information Bill, 2005, was finally tabled in the Lok
Sabha, which was passed on 11th May, 2005 and by the Rajya Sabha on 12th May,
2005 and assented by the President on 15th June, 2005. The Bill stated that Central
Government and State Governments had 120 days to implement the provisions of the
Bill in its entirety. The Act formally came into force on 13th October, 2005.
§ India has passed the Freedom of Information Act in 2002, which was later on
substituted by the Right to Information Act in 2005.According to this Act, Public
Information Officer has to disclose the information within 30 days from the receipt of
an application.
§ Amendments to the RTI Act in 2019: The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) (at
the federal and state levels) is appointed for a five-year term under the RTl Act of 2005.
The Amended Act replaces this section with one that provides that the Union
government will notify the CIC and ICs of their terms of office.
§ According to the RTI Act of 2005, the wages of the CIC and IC (at the national level)
must be equal to those of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election
Commissioners. The amended Act repeals these clauses and mandates that the Central
government set pay, allowances, and other employment terms and circumstances for
Central and State CICs and ICs. Suppose CICs and ICs (at the federal and state levels)
receive pensions or other retirement benefits for previous government employment. In
that case, their salary will be reduced by the pension amount at their appointment,
according to the 2005 Act. The amended Act of 2019 deleted this section.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 6

Question no 2
Free exchange of ideas is the basic pillars of the democracy. How
the Right to Information Act, 2005 achieve the above said goal.
Introduction
§ The right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) of the Indian
Constitution. In 1976, in the Raj Narain vs the State of Uttar Pradesh case, the Supreme
Court ruled that Right to information will be treated as a fundamental right under article
19. The Supreme Court held that in Indian democracy, people are the masters and they
have the right to know about the working of the government. Thus the government
enacted the Right to Information act in 2005 which provides machinery for exercising
this fundamental right.
Meaning
• The term Democracy refers to a government by the people, whether it is direct or
representative.
• Democracy is a Greek word (etymologically - demo means ‘people’ and crates means
‘rule’).
• Accountability and transparency are the two main pillars of democracy. People are
central in any democracy and they have the right to know how they are being governed.
The veil of secrecy restricts this vision of democracy; hence, the ready availability of
information is vital for the functioning of any democracy. The right to information,
when vested in people, can act as a deterrent against corruption and abuse of power.
The right to information is a means to ensure open government and to empower the
people.

Objectives of the RTI Act

1. Empower citizens to question the government.
2. The act promotes transparency and accountability in the working of the government.
3. The act also helps in containing corruption in the government and work for the people
in a better way.
4. The act envisages building better-informed citizens who would keep necessary vigil
about the functioning of the government machinery.

Significance of the RTl Act

1. The RTI Act, 2005 empowers the citizen to question the secrecy and abuse of power
practised in governance.
2. It is through the information commissions at the central and state levels that access to
such information is provided.
3. RTI information can be regarded as a public good, for it is relevant to the interests of
citizens and is a crucial pillar for the functioning of a transparent and vibrant
democracy.

Indian Democracy required openness of the government functionaries

• The Preamble of the Constitution unlike other enactments, explicates gist of the
intention of the Constituent Assembly. It has been established, that while interpreting
any provision of it, the Preamble should be considered an integral part of it and should
be treated as guidelines for the interpretation of the Constitution, whenever there is
ambiguity.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 7

 • A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and
expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a democratic Constitution
which envisages changes in the composition of legislatures and governments and must
be preserved. The freedom of speech and of the press is the Ark of the Covenant of
Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its institutions.
• In 1981, the call for right to information was made amply loud and clear in S.P. Gupta
Case. Justice Bhagwati while emphasizing on the concept of democracy adopted by
Indian Constitution observed that no democratic government can survive without
accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have
information about the functioning of the government. It is only when people know how
government is functioning that they can fulfill the role which democracy assigns to
them and makes democracy a really effective participatory democracy. The Supreme
Court also observed that it is obvious from the Constitution that we have adopted a
democratic form of Government. Where a society has chosen to accept democracy as
its creedal faith, it is elementary that the citizens ought to know what their government
is doing. The citizens have a right to decide by whom and by what rules they shall be
governed and they are entitled to call on those who govern on their behalf to account
for their conduct.
• The Supreme Court has also observed that the demand for openness in the Government
is based principally on two reasons. It is now widely accepted that democracy does not
consist merely in people exercising their franchise once in five years to choose their
rulers and, once the vote is cast, then retiring in passivity and not taking any interest in
the government.
• In 1997, Justice Faizan Uddin of the Supreme Court, once again held that in a
democratic set-up, there has to be an active and intelligent participation of the people
in all spheres and affairs of their community, as well as, the State. It is their right to be
informed about current political, social, economic and cultural life as well as the
burning topics and important issues of the day in order to enable them to consider and
form a broad opinion about the same and the way in which they are being managed,
tackled and administered by the Government and its functionaries
• In another judgement in the same year, Chief Justice of India, Justice Ahmadi, held that
in modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know
about the affairs of the government which, have been elected by them, seeks to
formulate sound policies of governance aimed for their welfare. To ensure the
continued participation of the people in the democratic process, they must be kept
informed of the vital decisions taken by the government and the basis thereof.
• In 2002, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice M.B. Shah,
in one of its landmark judgement had taken one step ahead while holding that the right
to get information in democracy is recognized all throughout and it is a natural right
flowing from the concept of democracy. The Court further observed that the little man
of this country would have basic elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate
who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may
be enacted. Voter's freedom of speech or expression in case of election would include
casting of votes, that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this
purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is a must. Voter's (little man
citizen's) right to know antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contesting
election for Member of Parliament (MA) or Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA)
is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little man may
think over before making his choice of electing lawbreakers as law-makers.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 8

 • Just to suppress the above said judgement, an all-party meeting was held in which
unanimously, it was passed that the government will issue an Ordinance in this regard.
Later on, the People Representative (Amendment) Act, 2002 was passed to weaken the
Supreme Court ruling. This Act said only those candidates who get elected have to
declare their assets and criminal antecedents.
• This Amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in 2003 by Peoples Union
for Civil Liberties (PUCL), for breaching of voters' right in a democratic country. The
Supreme Court held section 33-B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does
not pass the test of constitutionality, firstly for the reason that it imposes blanket ban
on dissemination of information other than that spelt out in the enactment irrespective
of the need of the hour and the future exigencies and expedients, and secondly, for the
reason that the ban operates despite the fact that the disclosure of information now
provided for is deficient and inadequate.
• In another judgement, the Apex Court observed that the Constitution of India
presupposes a vigilant citizenry. The ultimate sovereign in any India...." democracy are
the people, as the Preamble starts with "we the people of Therefore, people must
monitor and audit the work of their representatives, without which democracy is
meaningless. The Constitution makers obviously expected that the people would have
the final say in the making of any policy and action of the elected government. A
vigilance society is condition precedent of Indian democracy. In a democracy, the
electoral process has a strategic role.
• The Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, has further ruled
that true democracy demands that the citizens must have right to participate in the
affairs and the policies of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the
government would be meaningful only when the citizens are well informed on all
matters of public interest and they are called upon to express their views freely and
frankly. It was further held that particularly in the context of India where more than 65
per cent of the population is illiterate, care has to be taken that they are not misinformed
or disinformed or non-informed about the plans, schemes and polities which relate to
their benefit or welfare as it would render democracy a mere farce and lead to misrule.
• The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Association of Democratic Reforms, issued
directives to the Election Commission of India regarding voter's right to know the
antecedents of the candidates who are contesting election so that they may choose the
right candidate for their constituency. The Court held that the foundation of a healthy
democracy is based on a well informed citizenry. It was further held that voter's right
to know about the antecedents of the candidates contesting the election falls within the
realm of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution.
• In T.N. Sheshan, CEC of India v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had ruled that
right of voters to know about the antecedents of a candidate contesting election is the
real foundation of democracy and a basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It is a
pre-requisite for free and fair elections in a democracy.
• Democracy, therefore, expects openness, as openness is concomitant of a free society.
Undue pressure brought to bear on decision makers in Government can have frightening
side effects.
• In 2009, the Supreme Court held that democracy is a part of the basic structure of our
Constitution and rule of law and free and fair election are basic features of democracy.
Democracy postulates that there should be periodical elections so that people may be
in a position either to re-elect the same representatives or choose new representatives.
Democracy also contemplates that elections should be free and fair and the voters

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 9

 should be in a position to vote for the candidates of their choice. The pre-requisite of
this is that the elections are not rigged and manipulated and the candidates or their
agents are not able to resort to unfair means and malpractices.
• As far as limitation of Indian democracy is concerned, the Supreme Court has not
declared it as absolute freedom but, way back in 1997, it observed that Indian
democracy means to disclose all the information but also said that it is with limitation.
The democracy expects openness and openness is a concomitant of a free society.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
• But it is equally important to be alive to the dangers that lie ahead. It is important to
realize that undue popular pressure brought on decision-makers can have frightening
side-effects. If every action taken by the political or executive functionary is
transformed into a public controversy and made subject to an enquiry to soothe popular
sentiments, it will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on the independence of the
decision-maker who may find it safer not to take any decision. It will paralyze the entire
system and bring it to a grinding halt. So we have two conflicting situations, almost
enigmatic, and we think the answer is to maintain a fine balance which would serve
public interest. The Supreme Court held that however, like all other rights, even right
to know has recognized limitations; it is, by no means, absolute...Implicit in this
assertion is the proposition that in transaction which have serious repercussions on
public security, secrecy can legitimately be claimed because it would then be in the
public interest that such matters are not publicly disclosed or disseminated.
• In Indira Jaising v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, the Supreme Court
reiterated that there is no doubt that in a democratic framework, free flow of information
to the citizens is necessary for functioning of the Government, particularly, in matters
which form part of public record. but at the same time, it has to be admitted that the
right to information is not absolute and there are several areas where such information
need not be furnished. The inquiry ordered and the report made to the Chief Justice of
India being confidential and discreet, is only for the purpose of his information and not
for disclosure to any other person.
• In the instant case, a lawyer had moved the Supreme Court requesting that the report of
the committee consisting of CJI and other Judges making inquiry into the conduct of
Judges of the Karnataka High Court be released for information of the people. This was
denied by the Court on the ground that the Court had no power over the High Court and
hence it could not ask for publication of such a report. The appropriate course for the
petitioner would be to approach the High Court under Article 217 of the Constitution.
• In the case of R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, which involved the publication of
serious misconduct of public servants by a convict who was serial-killer, the Court held
that in modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to
know about the affairs of the Government which having been elected by them, seeks to
formulate sound policies of governance aimed at welfare. In order to ensure continued
participation of the people in the democratic process, they must be kept informed of the
vital decisions taken by the Government and the basis thereof.
• It is now well recognized that while a public servant may be subject to a duty of
confidentiality, this duty does not extend to remaining silent regarding exposing
corruption of other public servants. Society is entitled to know and public interest is
better served more if corruption and maladministration is exposed. The whistle blower
must, therefore, receive protection of law. The Court observed that it for this reason
that right to privacy has to be adequately balanced against the right to know, as both
these rights emanate from same sub-clause in Article 19 of the Constitution.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 10

 • The Supreme Court expressing its view on inter relationship between right to
information (know) and democracy, observed in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, that in a
democracy, a certain amount of public suspicion and distrust for the government is
always there, which of course varies from time to time according to its performance,
which makes the civil society to insist upon maximum openness in its functioning.
There may be occasions when governmental actions are taken not for public good but
for personal gain or other extraneous considerations.! There are also at times instances
of misuse or abuse of power and authority on the part of the executive officials.
Therefore, if unbridled secrecy is observed in the functioning of government, it would
tend to promote and encourage oppression, corruption and misuse of power and would
be easily shrouded in the veil of secrecy without any public accountability. But if there
is openness in the governance with maximum information available to the public, it
would be a surest measure to achieve a clean and transparent government, which in
turn, would be a powerful safeguard against political and administrative aberration and
inefficiency.

Question no 3
State International Conventions on Freedom of Information.
Introduction
• The development of the concept of Right to Information across the world has not been
uniform. In countries including India, it has evolved in the new millennium whereas in
countries like U.K., U.S.A., France, Germany, etc. the legislative history of R.T.I.
development is more than a century old.
• The R.T.I. legislation in various countries has developed depending on the
circumstances and a variety of other factors. Some R.T.I. laws have been promulgated
in response to the collapse of authoritarian regimes while in others it owes its origin to
rampant corruption and other politically scandalous events. Some countries have
enacted separate specific legislation on right to information while others have a
provision in this regard in their Constitution

RTI in International Legal Instruments

• The right to access information is firmly set in the body of International human rights
law.
United Nation Principle on the Freedom of Information
• These are the following principles propounded by the UNO to ensure the freedom of
information:
1. Maximum disclosure
2. Obligation to publish
3. Promotion of open government
4. Limited scope of exceptions
5. Processes to facilitate access
6. Costs
7. Open meetings
8. Disclosure takes precedence
9. Protection for whistleblowers

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

• The Right to information is a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 11

 • Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states that "everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers."

European Convention on Human Rights and R.T.I.

• The European Convention on Human Rights, adopted on November 4, 1950
incorporated a provision on freedom of speech and expression and impart information
in its Article 10 as follows :—
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to
hold opinions, and to receive and impart information frontiers; and ideas without
interference by public authorities and irrespective of frontiers.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may
be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by
law, and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security,
territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorders or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, reputation or rights of others, for preventing disclosure
of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality
of the judiciary.
• Article 10 relating to the access to information held by public authorities which stated:
"Everyone within the jurisdiction of a member state shall have the right to obtain, on
request, information held by the public authorities other than legislative bodies and
judicial authorities”
• Many countries have incorporated R.T.I. in their Constitutions while some others infer
it from the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression. However, India
has a separate Right to Information Act, which was enacted in 2005. Efforts are also
being made to bring out a model R.T.I. law at the international level which could be
uniformly acceptable to all the countries of the world.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1968

• Article 19 of the Covenant states as following:- “Everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media
and regardless of frontiers.”
• Emphasising the importance of civil and political rights for the emerging democracies,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted in 1968 and
Article 19 of the covenant provided that :
• (1) everyone shall have right to hold opinions without interference,
• (2) everyone shall have right to freedom of expression which includes freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media.

The Commonwealth
• The Commonwealth association of 54 countries affirmed the existence of RTI by
emphasizing the participation of people in the government processes. The law ministers
of the Commonwealth at their meeting held in Barbados in the year 1980 stated that
'public participation in the democratic and government process would be most
meaningful when citizens had adequate access to official information'.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 12

Bangkok Declaration, 1967
• The Association of South East Asian Nations in the Asia Pacific adopted the Bangkok
Declaration, 1967 expressing their consent for adherence to the U.N. Charter of Human
Rights which declared that right to freedom of speech and expression includes right to
seek, receive and impart information. In 2000, as many as 36 South East Asian
Countries launched an intensive anti-corruption drive making use of right to receive
information and 27 countries expressed willingness to accept the plan. Later, a Pacific
Plan, was endorsed by the Leader of the Pacific Islands Forum in 2005 for strengthening
regional cooperation in exchange of information and knowledge.

American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

• In 1969, the Organisation of American States (O.A.S.) adopted a legally binding
international treaty called the American Convention on Human Rights, which, among
other rights, focused on right to information and exchange of thoughts, ideas etc.
regardless of frontiers. Article 13 of the Convention states :
• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right shall include
freedom to work, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, either orally, in
writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.
• (2) The aforesaid right shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to
subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by the law to
the extent necessary to ensure :
a. respect for the rights and reputations of others, or
b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.
• The interpretation of sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Article 13 of the American Convention
on Human Rights clearly focus on two main aspects of the right to information. Firstly,
no one can be arbitrarily restrained or impeded in expressing his own thoughts, and
secondly, it implies a collective right to receive any information whatsoever and to have
access to the thoughts expressed by others.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

• Article 13 of the Convention on Rights of the Child provides as under—
1. Every child shall have the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print in the form of art, or through any other
media of child's choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only
be such as are provided by law and are necessary for :—
a. respect of the rights or reputations of others, or
b. protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals.

Rio-Declaration, 1992
• The Rio-de-Janerio (Brazil) Declaration basically addressed the vital issues relating to
environment and sustainable development under the U.N.Conference.
• PRINCIPLE 10 of the Declaration stressed on access to information (concerning
environmental issues). It proclaimed :— "Environmental issues are best handled with
the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant land. At the national level,
each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning environment
that is held by public authorities including information on hazardous materials and
activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision making
processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 13

 making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative
proceedings including redress and remedy, shall be provided."

Commonwealth Principles and Guidelines on Right to Information, 1999

• The Law Ministers of Commonwealth countries in their meeting held in Barbados in
1980 had stressed on public participation in the democratic process of governance by
providing the citizens easy access to official information. Thereafter, Expert Group on
'Right to Know' submitted its report for consideration and endorsement of
Commonwealth Law Minister's meeting held in Trinidad in May, 1999. The Principles
and Guidelines on Right to Information set out by the Expert Group and endorsed by
Law Ministers were finally adopted by Heads of Government at their submit in South
Africa in November 1999. These principles and guidelines are as follows :—
• Principles
• Freedom of information should be guaranteed as a legal and enforceable right
permitting every individual to obtain records and information held by the executive, the
legislative and judicial arms of the State, as well as any Government owned corporation
and any other body carrying out public functions :—
i. The legislation should contain a presumption in favour of maximum disclosure of
information;
ii. The right to access should be subject to reasonable exemptions (restrictions) such as
national defence and security, law enforcement, individual privacy or commercial
confidentiality, provided that withholding the information is not against the public
interest;
iii. Decisions under the legislation should be subject to independent review capable of
ensuring compliance.

United Nation's Principles on Freedom of Information 2000

• The General Assembly of the United Nations also laid down certain guiding principles
on right to freedom of information. They are briefly stated as follows :—
1. Maximum Disclosure.—Public bodies have an obligation to disclose information
and every member of public has a corresponding right to receive information. The
words, 'information' includes all records held by a public body, regardless of the
form in which it is stored;
2. Obligation to publish.—Freedom of information implies that public bodies publish
and disseminate widely documents of significant public interest, for example,
operational information about how the public body functions and the content of any
decision or policy affecting the public;
3. Openness in Governance.—The law on freedom of information should make
provision for public education and the dissemination of information regarding the
right to have access to information; the law should secrecy within Government; also
provide for a number of mechanisms to address the problem of a culture of secrecy
within Government.
4. Limited Scope for Exceptions.—A refusal to disclose information may not be based
on the aim to protect Governments from embarrassment or exposure of wrong doing
; a complete list of the legitimate aims which may justify non-disclosure should be
provided in the law and exceptions should be narrowly drawn so as to avoid
inclusion of material which does not have the legitimate interest;
5. Processing facilities for Access to Information.—All public bodies should be
required to establish open, accessible internal system for ensuring right of the public
to receive information; the law should provide for strict time limits for processing

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 14

 of requests for information and require that any refusal be accompanied by
substantive written reasons for the refusal;
6. Fees and costs.—The cost of gaining access to information held by public bodies
should not be so high as may deter potential applicants and negate the intent of the
law itself;
7. Open Forum.—The law should establish a presumption that all meetings of
governing bodies are open to the public

African Union
• In 2002, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted a Declaration
of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa. The declaration was replaced in 2019
with a new declaration with a view of expanding the guidance to States also on access
to information with the introduction of a specific section on the right of access to
information.
• The Declaration clearly endorses the right to access information held by public bodies
and “relevant private bodies,” which are bodies that are “controlled or financed directly
or indirectly by public funds” or that carry out public functions. It includes new
standards on oversight mechanisms to resolve access to information and a “right to
further appeal” a refusal to disclose information. Lastly, individuals cannot be
published for “releasing information on wrongdoing or which discloses a serious threat
to health, safety or the environment, or whose disclosure is in the public interest,” and
calls on States to adopt laws that protect disclosures that are in the public interest.

Joint Declaration on International Mechanism for Promoting Freedom of Expression and

Information, 2004
• The U.N. Organisation of American States and Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe issued a joint declaration on international mechanism for
promoting freedom of expression and information in 2004, which affirmed the right to
access information as a fundamental human right of all citizens.
• The Governments should, therefore, respect this right by enacting laws based of
principles of maximum disclosure and for ensuring democratic participation,
accountability in governance and for preventing corruption.
• The various international Conventions, agreements and declarations mentioned above
which motivated and inspired the member countries to enact their own right to
information laws, provided a blue print for the Indian law makers to enact Right to
Information Act, 2005, conforming to norms set out by international community on
freedom of information. The right to information guaranteed by the member countries
to their citizens is not absolute, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in
the interest of national security, public order, peace and tranquillity etc.
• Referring to the vast number of human rights including right to access to information,
Justice M.N. Venkatchaliah, the Chairman of the National Commission to Review the
Working of the Constitution of India (NCRWC)} as follows :—
• "During the last three decades, a vast number of human rights have found place in new
Constitutions and Bill of Rights of more than eighty countries. The countries which
enacted their new Constitution and have had the benefit of all the developments in the
human rights jurisprudence' which have taken place since 1950. Our Constitution has
by judicial interpretation, expanded the scope of fundamental rights, particularly in
relation to Article 21 and this has included more civil and political rights which were
not explicit in Part III."

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 15

 • The Commission (NCRWC) in its Chapter 3 and point 38.1 recognised the freedom of
press and freedom of information as fundamental right and recommended their
inclusion in Article 19 (1) (a) by amending it to read as follows :— "Article 19 (1)
(a).—All citizens shall have right to freedom of speech and expression which shall
include the freedom of press and other media, the freedom to hold opinions and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas."
Consequential amendment may also be made in Article 19 (2).
• Speaking about the Right to Information, the Chairman of the National Commission to
review the Constitution of India (NCRWC) Justice M.N.
• Venkatachaliah in his report dated March 31, 2002 expressed the view that the
Government must assume a major responsibility and mobilise skills to ensure flow of
information to citizens. In fact, public authorities should have an oath of transparency
in place of an oath of secrecy so that administration may become transparent and
participatory. He made a valuable suggestion that public authorities should take an oath
of transparency instead of secrecy so that the system of governance may become more
transparent and accountable to the people.

Question no 4
Explain the constitutional provisions and judicial trends that
prevailed before the enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005
in India.
Introduction
Ø The Constitution of India has established a Sovereign Secular Democratic Republic and
democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are
vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and hold governments and their
instrumentalities accountable to the people. But at the same time, revelation of certain
information in actual practice is likely to conflict with public interests including the
efficient functioning of the government's optimum use of limited fiscal resources and
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Therefore, it is necessary to
harmonise these two conflicting interests while preserving the paramount of the
democratic ideals. The Right to Information law in India is based on these ideal
principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Ø Later, it was the English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer who propagated
a view that freedom of man was more important than the concept of equality for the
attainment of justice. This, in other words, meant that every person should have the
right to certain freedoms which are fundamental for the development of his personality
and capabilities. These may include freedom of speech and expression, carrying on
trade or business of his choice, acquisition of property, right to move from one place to
another, freedom of religion. However, these freedoms cannot be allowed to be
exercised unfettered, instead they should be subject to reasonable restrictions.
Ø Supporting the Spencer's doctrine of individual freedoms, John Locke observed that
the purpose of law is not to abolish or restrain freedom which is deeply ingrained in all
human beings, but to preserve and enlarge it to the extent possible.
Ø Rousseau also asserted that man is born free and therefore, there should be minimum
restraint on his right of liberty and freedom. He, in his theory of 'general will' stated
that "law is the expression of general will of the people and therefore, every citizen has
a right to participate personally or through his representative in the formulation of law
and it should be same for all."

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 16

Constitutional Provisions
1.Preamble
1. As the preamble describes, one of the significant objectives of Indian Constitution
is to secure liberty of thought and expressions to the citizens of India. The liberty of
thought and expressions can never be secured until and unless the citizens have right
to information.
2. The aims and objects of the Preamble amply demonstrate that the Constitution is
committed to ensure every citizen of India, certain basic rights and freedoms, which are
as follows: Justice, social, economic and political;
Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
Equality of status and opportunity, and to promote them all;
Fraternity assuming dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.
Ø It is the 'liberty' part of Preamble which in subsequent years formed the basis of
evolution of right to information as a separate and independent right in India.
Ø The framers of the Constitution in their wisdom thought that liberty or freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution in Article 19 (1) may be distorted or misused by the
people and therefore, it is necessary to impose reasonable restrictions on them in the
larger interest of the people and the State. Yet another important feature of freedoms
envisaged in Article 19 (1) is that freedom of speech and expression under this Article
is guaranteed to citizens of India whereas other freedoms such as freedom of
conscience, of profession and propagation of religion is guaranteed to all persons,
whether they are Indian citizens or not.

Scope and expansion of 'State' under Article 12

Ø Article 12 of the Constitution defines 'the State' for the purpose of Part IlI of the
Constitution (Fundamental Rights), which includes Government, Parliament, State
Legislatures and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the
control of Government of India. Article 12 thus reads as under:
Ø Plain reading of the Article 12 reveals that the definition of the State under
Ø Article 12 has four components, which may be discussed as follows—
a. The Government and Parliament of India.-Government means any department or
institution of department; Parliament shall consist of the President, the House of People
(Lok Sabha) and Council of State (Rajya Sabha).
b. The Government and Legislature of each State.— State Legislature of each state
consists of the Governor, Legislative Council, and Legislative Assembly or any of
them.
c. All Local Authorities.-It means, Municipal Boards (Municipal Corporations,
Municipalities and Nagar Panchayat), Panchayats, Body of Port, Commissioner, and
other legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government.
d. Other Authorities.-Other Authorities within the territory of India or under the control
of Government of India.

2.Article 14
• This article guarantees right to equal protection of the laws and the right to
equality before the law, With reference to this Article, if government officials have
information, it must be provided to other citizen also to assure equality among citizens.
Delegation of discretionary powers to government officials in furnishing information
creates a danger of discrimination, which is subversive to the Equality Doctrine
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, under Article 14, every citizen must
have equal right to information.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 17

3.Article 19
• It has been established that right to information is integral part of freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19(1). Right to know is the part of Article 19(1)(a) but
this right is restricted by sub-clause (2).
• The constitutional validity of freedom of press as a medium of disseminating
information has been challenged before the Supreme Court in a number of cases ever
since the Constitution came into force in 1950.
• Freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) is subject to the
limitations imposed by clause (2). Clause (2) says that this freedom freedom under
Article 19(1)(a)] shall not affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State
from making any law, in so as far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of :
• (i) the sovereignty and integrity of India;
• (ii) the security of the State;
• (iii) friendly relations with foreign States;
• (iv) public order;
• (v) decency or morality; or
• (vi) in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
Ø In Ramesh Thaper v.State of Madras, the petitioner was the printer, publisher and
editor of a journal in English called Cross Roads printed published in Bombay. Under
section 9(1A) of Madras maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, the entry and
circulation of the journal was banned in the erstwhile State of Madras. In response to
the ban, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, averring that the
powers under the Act were an excessive restriction on freedom of expression under
Article 19. The Court stated that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom
of idea propagation, which can only be achieved through distribution.
Ø In Prabhu Dutt v. Union Of Inida, the Supreme Court held the right to know news
and information regarding administration of the government is included in the freedom
of press.
Ø The Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
v. Cricket Association of Bengal observed while considering the rights of a person
to telecast a sports event on television through the use of air waves held that
the right under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to receive and acquire
information and that viewers have the right to be informed adequately and truthfully.
Ø In Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India which concerned the questions of the disclosure
of the Vohra Committee Report, the Supreme Court once again acknowledged the
importance of open government in a participative democracy. The Court
observed: "In modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens
have a right to know about the affairs of the government which, having
been elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies of governance aimed
at their welfare.

3.1Right to Information through Audio-Visual Electronic Media

Ø It must be stated that extent of freedom of speech in print-media and visual media is
not the same. While pre-censorship of the print media is not permissible under Article
19 (1), it is permissible in the case of other audiovisual presentations. The Supreme
Court in the case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India held that pre-censorship of visual
media may be permissible under clause (2) of Article 19 as being a reasonable

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 18

 restriction in the interest of decency and morality. The decision of the Censor Board,
may, however, be appealable in a court of law.
Ø Earlier, electronic media was under the sole control of the Information and
Broadcasting Ministry of the Government of India, until 1991 but subsequently it was
handed over to a Public Sector Corporation called the Prasar Bharti Corporation. It was
subsequently thrown open to private enterprises under the new economic policy of 1991
and there are at present more than three hundred T.V. channels operating in the country.
However, there are certain built-in limitations on the use of electronic media due to
scarcity of frequencies, availability of power etc. and therefore, it has to be equitably
regulated.

4.Is Right to Information part of Right to Life under Article 21

Ø As we have seen that right to know is part and parcel of the right to freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution, but the judiciary has given it more
importance than the other freedoms provided by Article 19, therefore, in some of the
cases, the Court has emphasized on the right by interpreting it as part of 'right to life'
under Article 21.
Ø In 1988, the Supreme Court held that right to know is a basic right to which citizens of
a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to live in this age on our land
under Article 21 of our Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that "people at large
have a right to know in order to be able to take part in a participatory development in
industrial life and democracy".
Ø The Court further held that right has reached new dimensions and urgency and also
emphasis on that the right puts greater responsibility upon those who take upon the
responsibility to inform. The question before the court was relating to freedom of press.
Ø In 2002-03, the Supreme Court observed that the right to get information in democracy
is recognized everywhere and it is a natural right flowing from the concept of
democracy. It should be properly understood that the fundamental rights enshrined
under the Constitution such as, right to equality and freedoms have no fixed contents.
From time to time, the Court has filled in the skeleton with soul and blood and made it
vibrant.

4.1Right to Information and Privacy

Ø Justice Douglas in United States v. Carignan, observed that the dignity and privacy
of the individual has been recognised as a fundamental right the world over and
therefore, personal information of an individual may not be made available to everyone
as a matter of right.
Ø In Tokugha Yapthomi (Dr.) v. Appollo Hospital Ltd, the Supreme Court held that
particularly in the doctor-patient relationship, the doctor owes a duty of maintaining
secrecy about the patient's disease and not supposed to divulge or disclose it to any one
else than the patient himself, nor should it disclose to anyone the treatment or advice
which he has given to the patient.
Ø But this rule is subject to certain exceptions. Similar privacy (secrecy) provision also
exists in Section 20-A and Section 33 (m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1964
prescribing Code of medical ethics and also in the oath that a medical practitioner has
to take before starting medical practice.
Ø Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act, 1966, to
which India is also a party protects similar right and states that "No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home and
correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 19

 Ø The Supreme Court observed that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and
liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21.
Ø "A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy under Article 21. It is a "right to be let
alone". of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and
education among other matters.
Ø Right to privacy is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
Supreme Court while dealing with right to privacy has observed in many of the cases
i.e. protection of home or family, telephone tapping, DNA test, information which
pertain to home or character, etc. are the privacy protected under Article 21.
Ø But, here question is totally different and the focus is on the privacy of the information.
In fact, it deals with information which is held by the public authorities and disclosure
of which may defame the person to whom information is related or hamper the judicial
process or governmental security. Generally, it will be in conflict when the information
is of the nature of trust relationships, like Government pleader and clients, medical
professional and patients, research institutes and sponsor; or information held by public
authority in fiduciary relationship like election commission, passport office, employer,
educational institutions, licensing authority, etc.
Ø Right to privacy is also not expressly guaranteed under the Constitution of India. In
series of judgements the Supreme Court has recognized the right to privacy as a
fundamental right emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ø Right to privacy is also recognized as a basic human right under Article 12 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, which declares that "No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
not to attack upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection
of law against such interference or attacks."

4.2Right to privacy is not absolute

• A question arose in Mr. X' v. Hospital 'Z', out of a claim for damages made by a person
against the hospital which disclosed the fact that the patient was tested for HIV
positive, resulting in his proposed marriage being called off and the patient being
ostracised by the community. The Supreme Court held that right of privacy is one of
the basic Human Rights but cannot be treated an absolute right, and is subject to such
action as may be lawfully taken for the prevention of crime or disorder or protection
of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. The Court also
held that right to privacy may, apart from contract, also arise out a particular specific
relationship which may be commercial, matrimonial, or even political. The doctor-
patient relationship, though basically commercial, but is professionally a matter of
confidence, and therefore, doctors are morally and ethically bound to maintain
confidentiality. In such a situation, public disclosure of even true private facts may
amount to an invasion of the right of privacy which may sometimes lead to the clash of
one person's 'right to be let alone' with another person's right to be informed.
• Dealing with the right to privacy and personal liberty, in the context of proceedings for
divorce in which one of the parties to the litigation was alleged to be of unsound mind
and was required to undergo a medical examination, the Supreme Court has held in
Sharda v. Dharmpal, that the right to privacy in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution
is not an absolute right.

4.3Right to Information regarding prisoner's condition in jails

Ø The problem of visits of journalists and social activists to visit jails to know the
problems of prisoners by interviewing them and bring the conditions of prisons to

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 20

 public notice evokes a mixed reaction with regard to right to information on the one
hand and confidentiality or secrecy on the other. This may be illustrated by referring to
the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in M. Hasan v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh. In this case, the petitioner, a journalist and videographer wanted to interview
prisoners who were condemned to death to know their last moment reaction and
feelings. The jail authorities, however, refused to grant permission for such interview
on the ground that it might evoke public sentiments and they may agitate for reduction
of the sentence to that of life imprisonment, which may eventually lead to law and order
problems. The Court held that where the Jail Manual prohibits outside public meetings
with the prisoners for security and safety reasons, such deprivation of the citizen's right
to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) shall be justified as
reasonable restriction on this right under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
But where Jail Manual permits meeting of a willing prisoner with his friends and
relatives subject to certain reasonable conditions, the journalist including the
videographer should also be permitted to interview the prisoner in exercise of his right
to seek information and disseminate it in public interest.
Ø In the case of Sheela Barse v. Union of India, the petitioner who was a woman
freelance journalist, was granted permission to interview prisoners in jails but the same
was later withdrawn for security reasons. Aggrieved by the withdrawal of permission,
she wrote a letter to the Supreme Court on the ground that her fundamental right to
freedom of right to information which is a part of freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19 (1) (a) was denied to her. The Court treated the letter as a PIL petition
and held it to be an important right of the petitioner but it was subject to the provisions
of the Jail Manual and reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) and Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Court agreed with the plea of the petitioner that interviewing the jail
prisoners was an important source of knowledge for assessing the conditions prevailing
in Jails so that they could be improved in the interest of the prisoners who are also
entitled for basic necessities of life as ordained by Article 21 of the Constitution

5.Directive Principle Of State Policy

Ø This provides for adequate means of livelihood, equitable distribution of material
resources of the community, to check concentration of the wealth and means of
production. All these rights would be remained unfulfilled if right to information
is not guaranteed ahead of these rights.
Ø Article 51 A of the Constitution imposes certain duties upon the citizens and a citizen
with full information is better equipped for the performance of these duties. Thus right
to information is an inherent part of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under
article 19(1) (a) and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under article 21 of the
constitution. The Constitution sets out the duties owed by every citizen under Article
51A. A fully informed citizen is better equipped for the performance of these duties.
Access to information would assist citizens in fulfilling these obligations.
Ø Further, Article 361A which deals with ‘Protection of publication and proceedings of
Parliament and State Legislatures, creates protection against actions for defamation
arising from lawful and accurate parliamentary reporting. No action, civil or criminal,
can be taken against any person for publication of a true report of the proceedings of
the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha or a State Legislative Assembly or a State Legislative
Council, unless the publication is proved to have been made with malice.This implies
that the media can inform the people about what is happening in the legislatures without
fear of being sued.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 21

6.Writs under Articles 226/227 and Right to Information
Ø Under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court is empowered to deal with the writs.
Ø The Kerala High Court held that no Mandamus writ can be filed, if information is not
supplied. In the instant case, the petitioner sought certain information from respondent
under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was not supplied. Therefore, the
petitioner approached the High Court seeking the direction for writ of mandamus to
direct the authority to give information immediately. The Kerala High Court had
refused to admit writ and held that the Right to Information Act, 2005, itself provides
effective and adequate alternate remedies. The Act specifically stipulates that if within
the time stipulated in the Act, information requested for has not been supplied; it would
be deemed that the petitioner's request has been rejected. In such circumstance, the
petitioner can file an appeal under Section19 of the Act.
Ø The petitioner has still another remedy by way of approaching the State Information
Commission directly in exercise of the powers of the Commission under section
18(1)(c). Earlier, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if the petitioner has an
alternative remedy under Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which
could be exhausted by him. No opportunity was provided to entertain the instant
petition in the face of the aforementioned alternative remedy.
Ø The Supreme Court held that section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is an
exhaustive provision and the Act on its cumulative reading is a complete code in itself.
However, nothing in the Act can take away the powers vested in the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution and of this Court under Article 32. The finality indicated
in Sections 19(6) and 19(7) cannot be construed to oust the jurisdiction of higher Courts,
despite the bar created under section 23 of the Act. It always has to be read and
construed subject to the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6.1 PIL has expanded the Scope of Right to Information

Ø The liberalisation of locus standi rule in public interest litigation has facilitated active
public participation in the judicial process and considerably expanded the scope of right
to information.
Ø The public spirited activists and/or group or organisation can now move the Court
through a PIL petition to draw the Court's attention towards problems relating to a
variety of matters such as pollution of river waters, unhygienic conditions in blood
banks, miserable plight of undertrials in jails, police atrocities, vehicular air pollution,
industrial pollution, arrears of court,' illegal mining etc. This has facilitate free-flow of
information and making public more aware about their right to information and take
their woes and sufferings for redressal before the Courts. The courts, on their part, have
by the liberal interpretation of laws, issued orders and directions to the concerned
authorities to provide relief to the sufferers and ensure protection of people's human
and fundamental rights. The enforcement of RTI law has further helped in eroding the
secrecy regime and infusing openness and transparency in the system of governance.
Ø Public interest litigation has proved to be an effective forum to enforce right of
information and make the administration accountable to the people.
Ø The case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, provides a best
illustration to show how PIL has expanded the voter's right to know about the
candidates contesting the elections. The Court held that fair election contemplates
disclosure by the candidate of his part including the assets held by him so that voters
may choose proper candidate.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 22

 Ø The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, held that right to know is implicit
in right to freedom of speech and expression and disclosure of information regarding
functioning of the Goverrment must be the rule of governance.
Ø The Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, has further ruled
that true democracy demands that the citizens must have right to participate in the
affairs and the policies of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the
government would be meaningful only when the citizens are well informed on all
matters of public interest and they are called upon to express their views freely and
frankly. It was further held that particularly in the context of India where more than 65
per cent of the population is illiterate, care has to be taken that they are not misinformed
or disinformed or non-informed about the plans, schemes and polities which relate to
their benefit or welfare as it would render democracy a mere farce and lead to misrule.
Ø The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Association of Democratic Reforms, issued
directives to the Election Commission of India regarding voter's right to know the
antecedents of the candidates who are contesting election so that they may choose the
right candidate for their constituency. The Court held that the foundation of a healthy
democracy is based on a well informed citizenry. It was further held that voter's right
to know about the antecedents of the candidates contesting the election falls within the
realm of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution.
Ø In T.N. Sheshan, CEC of India v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had ruled that
right of voters to know about the antecedents of a candidate contesting election is the
real foundation of democracy and a basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It is a
pre-requisite for free and fair elections in a democracy.

7.Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court

Ø To file a writ before the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right.
The main heading before Article 32 reads as "Right to Constitutional Remedies" , which
means remedies under Article 32 is available only for the protection of the
constitutional rights and further reading of heading to Article limits the remedies for
enforcement of rights conferred by Part—III (Fundamental Rights). Sub clause (1) of
Article 32 provides right to move to the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for
enforcement of the rights conferred by Part-III is guaranteed. Whereas, sub-clause (2)
empowers the Apex Court by stating that the Supreme Court shall have power to issue
directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and rights conferred by Part-III.
Ø Even right to information is integral part of the Article 19 and falls in the category of
fundamental rights but enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides
remedial machinery in case of rejection of application or aggrieved with the order of
the authority. Therefore, any application under Article 32 is not maintainable.
Ø While the Constitution provides for regular appeal to the Supreme Court from the
decision of the High Court under Articles 132-134, there may be still some cases
where justice might require the interference of the Supreme Court with decisions not
only of the High Court outside the preview of Articles 132-134 but also of the other
Court or Tribunals within the territory of India. Such residuary power, outside the
ordinary law relating to appeal is conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Ø Article 136 provides special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court, according to which
the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from -
i. any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order;
ii. in any cause or matter passed or made;

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 23

 iii. by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
Ø But, it will not apply to any judgment, determination, sentence, or order passed or made
by any Court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
Ø The Supreme Court normally interferes with the decisions arrived at by tribunal on the
following grounds : When—
i. the Tribunal acts in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it under the Statute
or regulation creating it as tangibly fails to exercise a patent Jurisdiction;
ii. there is an apparent error on the face of the decision;
iii. the award is made in violation of the principles of natural justice causing
substantial and grave injustice to the parties;
iv. the Tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of jurisprudence.

Question no 5
Write a note on ‘MKSS’ (Majdoor Kisan Shakti Sangha)
Introduction
Ø The right to Information Act 2005 which came fully into effect on12th October 2005 is
one of the most significant legislation enacted by the Parliament in India. It is a major
step towards more accountable and transparent government. RTI has been enacted to
provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure
access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote
transparency and accountability. The Act will certainly lead to end the culture of
governmental secrecy and fulfil its potential as a truly great democracy.

Post-independence developments towards R.T.I. Law

• In fact, the right to information movement owes its origin from the State of Rajasthan.
A labour organisation named 'Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan' working for the rights
of marginal farmers and landless labourer in the Denungiri village of Rajasthan started
an agitation in 1990 against the Government to expose the corruption in the famine
relief work for the rural poor which was being carried out by the Panchayati Raj
institutions.
• It was alleged that the Government officials hand in gloves with the N.G.Os. had
devoured huge money by making fictitious entries on muster-rolls marking fake
attendance of labourers who were not present and showing wage payments against their
names. The Mazdoor Sangathan demanded photocopies and relevant vouchers of
purchase and sale of materials which were attached in the records for proving the
corrupt practices of the guilty officials and N.G.Os.
• The movement was further intensified by organising public hearings (Jan Sunvai) in
other parts of the State with a view to open debate on corruption by Government and
public officials. People from different segments of society actively participated in the
open hearings and political leaders, government officials, landless labourers, private
contractors, businessmen etc. were also invited to respond and defend themselves, but
the Panchayat officials and Politicians preferred to stay away because of the fear that
their corruption and illegal activities may be exposed to public.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 24

 • Consequent to these public hearings and demand for access to information and
government records, the then Chief Minister of Rajasthan was compelled to announce
in the State Assembly on 5th April, 1995, that Rajasthan would be the first State in
India where every citizen would be entitled to have photocopies of all official
documents relating to local development expenditure, on payment of nominal fees.
• The announcement remained a dead letter for over a year, which caused disappointment
among the agitating public. Therefore, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan now
started a sit-in-agitation (Dharna) from Bewar town of Rajasthan demanding issue of
notification by the Government for access to information so that citizens may know and
have information regarding the local development fund.
• At the end of this fifty-two days long sit-in-Dharna agitation, the Deputy Chief Minister
announced that the State Government had already issued administrative instructions six
months earlier regarding citizen's right to seek and receive photocopies of requested
documents from Panchayats or local Government institutions.
• Despite these instructions having been issued, the local self government officials and
village Sarpanchas denied information to the Sangathan (MKSS) members and
sometimes even mishandled them or lodged false FIR's against them. Thereafter, the
aggrieved members gave a notice to hold a Dharna at Sub-Divisional headquarter at
Kisangarh. The Collector of the District ordered for a special audit and seizure of
relevant documents, but the same could not be implemented due to reluctance of the
State officials and pressure from political leaders.
• The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan movement stirred up the demand for right to
access to information, which eventually led to the foundation of National Campaign for
People's Right to Information in 1996 in Delhi. The objective of this campaign was to
force the Government of India to enact a Right to Information law at the national level.
Persons from different sections of society such as social activists, journalists, lawyers,
professionals, retired civil Servants, academicians and others joined the campaign
demanding a legislation on right to information to make the system of governance more
vibrant and people friendly.
• Ghost entries in muster rolls were a sign of rampant corruption in the system, which
prompted MKSS to demand official information recorded in government files. From
very modest beginning in the villages of Rajasthan, the success of MKSS has been a
source of inspiration for activists in India and throughout the world. It led to the genesis
of a broader discourse on the right to information in India. The National Campaign for
People's Right to Information (NCPRI) formed in the late 1990s became a broad-based
platform for action.
• In 1997, a Conference of Chief Ministers resolved that the Central and State
Governments will work together on transparency and the right to information.
Following this, the Central and State Government agreed to take immediate steps, in
consultation with the States, to introduce freedom of information legislation, along with
amendments to the Official Secrets Act and the Indian Evidence Act, before the end of
1997, The Central and State Governments also agreed to a number of other measures
to promote openness. These included establishing of accessible computerized

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 25

 information Centre to provide information to the public on essential services, and
speeding up ongoing efforts to computerize Government operations.
• The social movements in Rajasthan and other states led to the formation of the National
Campaign for People‘s Right to Information in 1996. Various State RTI laws were
passed during this period, including Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Maharashtra Karnataka,
Assam, Madhya Pradesh and Goa. Finally, the national Freedom of Information Act
was pass in 2002. However, this Act was not notified and the newly elected government
(after General Election in 2004), got the Right to Information Act passed in Parliament
in 2005.

Question no 6
Write note on Supreme Court on Right to Information
Introduction
Ø In Indian democracy, the Supreme Court plays important role of safeguarding
fundamental rights of the citizens which includes providing fair justice also.
Justice which is the soul of a democratic society must be administered without
fear or favour. The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of law, the entire judicial
system of the country is controlled by it.
Ø The Right to Information Act, 2005, has affected all wings of the government, be it the
judiciary, executive or legislature. The ambit of the Act is increasing as is evident from
the pro-disclosure judgments that are coming not only from the Information
Commissions, but also from the higher judiciary.Slowly but surely, there is a growing
realisation that access to information is beneficial for one and all in the long run.
Ø Judiciary can be said to be the backbone of the right to information in India. Time
and again it has vehemently supported the principles of transparency and
accountability in all spheres of governance.However, in the recent times even the
judiciary has been embroiled in a controversy pertaining to the issues of disclosure.
This is indicative of conflicts and contradictions coming to the fore after the access law
has actively been enforced.

Case Laws
In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
Ø One of the earliest cases where the Supreme Court emphasized the people’s right to
know. In this case, the petitioner challenged an order issued by the then Government of
Madras under Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949
imposing a ban on the circulation of the petitioner’s journal ‘Cross Roads’. The order
was struck down by the SC as violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19(1)(a).

In State of UP vs Raj Narain (1975)

Ø One of the prominent instances, when the Supreme Court took cognizance of the public
demand for the right to information, was in State of UP vs Raj Narain (1975). The SC
ruled that:
Ø In a government of responsibility like ours where the agents of the public must be
responsible for their conduct, there can be but a 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

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 26

 public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public
transaction in all its bearings (State of UP vs Raj Narain Supreme Court of India, 1975).

In Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India (1977)

Ø This case concerned the questions of the disclosure of the Vohra Committee Report,
the Supreme Court once again acknowledged the importance of open Government in a
participative democracy. The Court observed that: “In modern constitutional
democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the
Government which, having been elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies of
governance aimed at their welfare.” It went on to observe that “democracy expects
openness and openness is concomitant of a free society and the sunlight is a
disinfectant”.

In Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer,

Ø The Court held that the litigant cannot be allowed to seek information as to why and
for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion in Central
Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, held that the examining
bodies Universities, Examination Boards, etc are neither security nor intelligence
organisations and therefore the exemption under section 24 will not apply to them.
Therefore they are bound to provide access to information and any applicant can either
inspect the document/record, take-notes attract or obtain certified copies thereof.

In SP Gupta & others vs The President of India and others (1982)

Ø In the year 1982, the Supreme Court in the case of SP Gupta & others vs The President
of India and others held that the right to information was a fundamental right under the
Indian Constitution.
Ø In this case, the petitioners questioned the validity of Central Government orders on the
non- appointment of two judges. To support their claim, the petitioners sought the
disclosure of correspondence between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and
the Chief Justice of India.
Ø The State claimed privilege against disclosure of these documents under article 74(2)
of the Indian Constitution and section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ø Justice Bhagwati rejected the government’s claim for protection against disclosure and
directed the Union of India to disclose the documents containing the correspondence.
Ø An open and effective participatory democracy requires accountability and access to
information by the public about the functioning of the government. Exposure to the
public gaze in an open government will ensure a clean and healthy administration and
is a powerful check against oppression, corruption, and misuse or abuse of authority.
The concept of an open Government is the direct emanation from the right to know
which seems implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article
19(1) (a). Therefore, disclosures of information in regard to the functioning of
Government must be the rule, and secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest
requirement of public interest so demands. The approach of the Court must be to
attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with the requirement of
public interest, bearing in mind all the time that disclosure also serves an important
aspect of public interest” (Supreme Court of India in SP Gupta & others vs The
President of India and others, 1982).

In Indian Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1984)

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 27

 Ø In this case, the SC directed the central government to re-examine its taxation policy
by evaluating whether it constituted an excessive burden on newspapers. The
petitioners, including newspaper companies and employees, argued that an import duty
led to an increased cost of newspapers and a drop in circulation, thereby adversely
affecting freedom of speech and expression. The Court reasoned that a government can
levy taxes on the publication of newspapers, however within reasonable limits to not
encroach upon freedom of expression.
Ø Freedom of expression, as learned writers have observed, has four broad social
purposes to serve: (i) it helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment, (ii) it assists in the
discovery of truth, (iii) it strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in
decision-making, and (iv) it provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to
establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change. All members of
society should be able to form their own beliefs and communicate them freely to others.
In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people’s right to know. Freedom
of speech and expression should, therefore, receive a generous support from all those
who believe in the participation of people in the administration.

In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd. (1988)
Ø Justice Mukharji recognized the right to know as emanating from the right to life. The
question which arose was whether Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. was entitled to an
injunction against Indian Express which had published an article questioning the
reliability of the former’s debenture issue. The learned Judge observed: “We must
remember that the people at large have a right to know in order to be able to take part
in a participatory development in the industrial life and democracy. Right to know is a
basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to
live in this age on our land under Article 21 of our Constitution. That right has reached
new dimensions and urgency. That right puts greater responsibility upon those who take
upon themselves the responsibility to inform.”

In Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL (1995)

Ø The Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Article 19(1)(a) in the context of
advertising or commercial speech, held that the public has a right to receive
information. The question which arose, in that case, was whether advertisements being
for commercial gain could avail of the protection guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
The Supreme Court observed: “Advertising as a ‘commercial speech’ has two facets.
Advertising, which is no more than a commercial transaction, is nonetheless
dissemination of information regarding the product advertised. Public at large is
benefited by the information made available through the advertisements. In a
democratic economy free flow of commercial information is indispensable. There
cannot be honest and economical marketing by the public at large without being
educated by the information disseminated through advertisements.
Ø The economic system in a democracy would be handicapped without there being
freedom of ‘commercial speech’. Examined from another angle, the public at large has
a right to receive the ‘commercial speech’. Article 19(1)(a) not only guarantees freedom
of speech and expression, it also protects the rights of an individual to listen, read and
receive the said speech. So far as the economic needs of a citizen are concerned, their
fulfilment has to be guided by the information disseminated through the advertisements.
The protection of Article 19(1)(a) is available to the speaker as well as to the recipient
of the speech. The recipient of ‘commercial speech’ may be having much deeper
interest in the advertisement than the businessman who is behind the publication. An

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 28

 advertisement giving information regarding a life-saving drug may be of much more
importance to general public than to the advertiser who may be having purely a trade
consideration.”

In Secy., Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal (1995)

Ø The Supreme Court, while considering the rights of a person to telecast a sports event
on television through the use of air waves held that the right under Article 19(1)(a)
includes the right to receive and acquire information and that viewers have the right to
be informed adequately and truthfully. In support of this right, the Court quoted from
Article 10 of the European Commission on Human Rights.
Ø The Court held that although a person seeking to telecast a sports event when he himself
is not participating in the game is not exercising his right to self-expression, he is
seeking to educate and entertain the public which is part of the freedom of expression.
The Court held that the right of the viewer to be entertained and informed is also,
likewise, integral to the freedom of expression. The Court observed: “True democracy
cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the polity of
the country. The right to participate in the affairs to the country is meaningless unless
the citizens are well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are
called upon to express their views. One- sided information, disinformation,
misinformation and non-information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which
makes democracy a farce when medium of information is monopolized either by a
partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchic organizations. This is
particularly so in a country like ours where about 65 per cent of the population is
illiterate and hardly 1 1/2 per cent of the population has an access to the print media
which is not subject to pre-censorship.”

In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)

Ø The Court in dealing with the question of criminalization of politics held that under the
Indian Constitution, electors had a fundamental right to know the antecedents of
candidates contesting elections to hold public office. The court read in ‘right to be
informed’ as a right flowing from freedom of speech and expression.
Ø Election Commission was directed to secure affidavits by candidates recording all
particulars relating to past or pending criminal charges or cases against them. This
included information as to whether the candidate was convicted/acquitted/discharged
of any criminal offence in the past. Additionally, if convicted, the quantum of
punishment that was awarded; and whether prior to six months of the filing of
nomination, the candidate was accused of an offence punishable with minimum two
years of imprisonment.

In PUCL v. Union of India (2004)

Ø The Peoples Union for Civil Liberties approached the Supreme Court challenging
Section 33B of the Representation of People (Third Amendment) Act which nullified
the decision in Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) by providing that
candidates contesting elections need not file an affidavit of criminal antecedents and
particulars as directed by the Court.
Ø This provision was held unconstitutional and void as it infringed the “right of electors'
to know”, a constituent of the fundamental right to free speech and expression and
hindered free and fair elections, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Subsequently, all criminal records and antecedents of candidates contesting elections
are now mandated to be matters of public record.

Lakshmi Devi K, Assistant Professor of Law, Unit 1, RTI 29