Information Sharing, Transparency and the Right to Information
GS4 · Probity in Governance in Depth
Why transparency
Transparency means that government decisions, rules, spending and performance are open to public view. Information is power: when citizens know what the State is doing, they can hold it to account. Justice Louis Brandeis put it simply: "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." In India, the Right to Information Act, 2005 turned transparency from a favour into a legal right.
Constitutional basis
The Constitution does not mention RTI explicitly, but the Supreme Court read it into Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression):
- State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) – people have a right to know every public act.
- S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – open government flows from the right to know.
- Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) – voters have a right to know candidates' criminal and financial backgrounds.
The movement for RTI
- The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), led by Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey and Shankar Singh, began jan sunwais (public hearings) in Rajasthan in the early 1990s, reading out muster rolls and bills to expose fake entries in public works. Their slogan: "*Hamara paisa, hamara hisaab*" – our money, our accounts.
- Several States passed RTI laws: Tamil Nadu (1997), Goa (1997), Rajasthan (2000), Maharashtra (2003), Delhi (2001) and others.
- The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 was passed but never notified.
- The RTI Act, 2005 came into full force on 12 October 2005.
Key provisions of the RTI Act, 2005
| Provision | Content |
|---|---|
| Section 2(f) | "Information" includes records, documents, emails, opinions, advices, contracts, samples, electronic data |
| Section 2(h) | "Public authority" – bodies set up by Constitution, law or government, and bodies substantially financed by government, including NGOs |
| Section 4 | Proactive disclosure – publish organisation, functions, powers, budgets, decision-making norms, subsidies, concessions, etc. |
| Section 5 | Every authority must designate Public Information Officers (PIOs) |
| Section 6 | Any citizen may apply, without giving reasons; fee ₹10 (BPL exempt) |
| Section 7 | Reply within 30 days; 48 hours if life or liberty is involved |
| Section 8 | Exemptions – sovereignty and security, foreign relations, contempt of court, privilege of legislature, trade secrets, fiduciary relations, information endangering life, ongoing investigations, cabinet papers (until decision is taken), personal information with no public interest |
| Section 8(2) | Public interest override – information may be disclosed if public interest outweighs harm |
| Section 8(3) | Information over 20 years old generally to be disclosed (with some exceptions) |
| Section 11 | Third-party information procedure |
| Sections 12–17 | Central and State Information Commissions |
| Section 19 | First appeal to senior officer; second appeal to Information Commission |
| Section 20 | Penalty on PIO up to ₹25,000 (₹250 per day) for unjustified delay or denial |
| Section 24 | Security and intelligence organisations in the Second Schedule exempt, except for allegations of corruption and human rights violations |
Amendments and changes
- RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 – gave the Central Government power to fix the tenure, salary and conditions of Information Commissioners (earlier fixed at five years and equal to Election Commissioners). Critics said this reduced their independence.
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 – amended Section 8(1)(j) to exempt all "personal information" without the earlier public-interest test inside that clause. Transparency activists argue this weakens RTI because officials' personal information relevant to public duties may now be withheld.
Impact of RTI
Positive:
- Millions of applications every year; one of the most used transparency laws in the world.
- Exposed scams – the Adarsh Housing Society scam, irregularities in the Commonwealth Games, fake ration cards, misuse of MPLADS funds.
- Empowered ordinary people – getting pensions, ration cards and passports cleared after filing RTI.
- Improved record-keeping and proactive disclosure.
- Supported social audits under MGNREGA (mandated in Section 17 of MGNREGA, 2005).
Problems:
- Pendency – large backlogs in information commissions; some commissions functioning without full strength.
- Vacancies – the Supreme Court in *Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India* (2019) directed timely appointments.
- Weak proactive disclosure under Section 4.
- Rare penalties on erring PIOs.
- Attacks on RTI activists – dozens killed according to civil society tracking; Satish Shetty (Pune, 2010) and Amit Jethwa (Gujarat, 2010) are well-known cases.
- Misuse – frivolous or vexatious applications, blackmail.
- Political parties – the CIC in 2013 held six national parties to be public authorities, but parties have not complied, and the issue is pending.
Transparency beyond RTI
- Proactive disclosure on websites and dashboards (PM Gati Shakti, PFMS, eGram Swaraj).
- E-procurement and GeM.
- Social audits (MGNREGA, PMAY).
- Citizen report cards – pioneered by the Public Affairs Centre, Bengaluru (1993).
- Open data – data.gov.in under the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (2012).
- Live-streaming of court proceedings (Supreme Court constitution benches since 2022).
- Electoral transparency – candidate affidavits; the Supreme Court struck down electoral bonds in *ADR v. Union of India* (February 2024) for violating voters' right to information.
Limits of transparency
Transparency must be balanced with:
- Privacy (*Puttaswamy*, 2017).
- National security and ongoing investigations.
- Commercial confidentiality in tenders.
- Free and frank internal advice – officers may hesitate to record honest opinions if every note is public; hence the cabinet-papers exemption until decision.
The Supreme Court in CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under RTI, while balancing privacy and judicial independence.
Information sharing inside government
Transparency is not only toward citizens. Information sharing between departments also matters: siloed data causes duplication, fraud (the same person getting benefits twice) and poor planning. Tools include the National Data and Analytics Platform, PM Gati Shakti (2021) GIS-based master plan for infrastructure, JAM trinity (Jan Dhan–Aadhaar–Mobile) for DBT, and shared databases such as the e-Shram portal for unorganised workers. Such sharing must follow privacy safeguards under the DPDP Act, 2023 – purpose limitation, consent where needed and data security.
Official Secrets Act vs RTI
The colonial Official Secrets Act, 1923 punishes disclosure of secret information. The 2nd ARC (1st report, *Right to Information: Master Key to Good Governance*, 2006) recommended repealing it and adding a chapter on official secrets in the National Security Act. Section 22 of the RTI Act gives RTI overriding effect over inconsistent laws, including the Official Secrets Act, but the culture of secrecy in many offices remains.
Worked example
A villager files an RTI asking for the list of beneficiaries and payments under a housing scheme in his panchayat. The PIO hesitates, saying beneficiaries' names are personal information. However, the names of beneficiaries of public schemes and amounts paid are matters of public interest and are usually displayed on walls and websites under proactive disclosure. The PIO should provide the information within 30 days. The disclosure reveals that some houses exist only on paper, leading to recovery and action – a typical example of how RTI enables accountability.
Mains practice question
"The Right to Information Act is not all about citizens' empowerment; it essentially redefines the concept of accountability." Discuss. (150 words)
Answer framework
- RTI 2005; constitutional basis (Raj Narain).
- Empowerment: citizens get services, expose scams.
- Redefining accountability: answerability to citizens directly, proactive disclosure, penalties, social audits.
- Challenges: 2019 amendment, DPDP change, pendency, attacks.
- Conclude: strengthen commissions and proactive disclosure.
- Constitutional basis Art 19(1)(a): Raj Narain 1975, S. P. Gupta 1981, ADR 2002
- MKSS, Aruna Roy, jan sunwai, "hamara paisa, hamara hisaab"; FoI Act 2002 (not notified); RTI in force 12 Oct 2005
- Sec 4 proactive disclosure; Sec 7: 30 days / 48 hours; Sec 8 exemptions, 8(2) public interest, 8(3) 20 years; Sec 20 penalty ₹250/day up to ₹25,000; Sec 24 intelligence exempt except corruption and HR
- 2019 amendment: Centre fixes tenure/salary of ICs; DPDP Act 2023 amended 8(1)(j)
- CIC 2013: parties as public authorities; Subhash Chandra Agarwal 2019; electoral bonds struck down Feb 2024
