The RTI is now the ‘right to deny information’

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, which empowers citizens to seek government information, was once hailed as a major step towards transparency and accountability. However, over time, the Act has faced significant challenges in implementation, including delays in processing requests, reluctance in enforcing penalties, and judicial rulings that have weakened its provisions. These developments have raised concerns about the Act's efficacy in curbing corruption and fostering a more open governance system.

Erosion of RTI's Effectiveness:

• Slow Implementation and Backlog: Information Commissions, tasked with enforcing the RTI Act, have been plagued with inefficiencies. Many commissioners, primarily retired bureaucrats, failed to deliver timely justice, resulting in a massive backlog of cases, often extending beyond a year.
• Government's Reluctance to Appoint Commissioners: A critical issue contributing to the backlog has been the government's reluctance to promptly appoint Information Commissioners. This delayed appointment process further hinders the efficiency of the RTI system, ultimately depriving citizens of their right to timely information.
• Judicial Backing of Exemptions: Court judgments have contributed to weakening the RTI Act by supporting interpretations that limit its scope. In 2011, the Supreme Court’s ruling suggested that the Act should not be misused to disrupt national progress, leading to a shift in how RTI requests were perceived and processed.

Expansion of Exemptions and Narrow Interpretation:

• Personal Information Exemption: The judgment in the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case broadened the interpretation of "personal information" under the RTI Act, leading to the denial of crucial details on public officials' conduct and assets, citing privacy concerns.
• Inconsistent Interpretation by Authorities: Despite clear legislative intent, courts and public information officers have often interpreted sections of the RTI Act in ways that dilute its effectiveness, especially when deciding what constitutes "public interest" or "privacy." The outcome has been a widespread denial of information.
• Impact of Court Rulings: The Deshpande case, along with subsequent rulings, has set a precedent for denying citizens access to information by construing provisions in favor of officials' privacy over transparency, undermining the Act’s original objective of ensuring accountability.

Need for Restoring RTI’s Original Purpose:

• Public and Media Advocacy: Citizens and the media must actively engage in defending the RTI Act to prevent further erosion of its provisions. The media plays a pivotal role in highlighting the importance of transparency and ensuring that the law fulfills its intended purpose.
• Reverting to Original Provisions: To restore the RTI Act’s efficacy, it is necessary to adhere strictly to the original provisions, avoiding amendments that compromise transparency and accountability, especially those driven by narrow interpretations or political motivations.
  Ensuring Robust Enforcement: The government must strengthen the enforcement mechanisms of the RTI Act, such as ensuring timely appointments of Information Commissioners and penalizing delays in providing information. This would help in overcoming existing challenges and improve the functioning of the law.

Practice Question:

Q. Critically examine the challenges faced by the Right to Information (RTI) Act in ensuring transparency and accountability in governance. Discuss the impact of judicial interpretations and government inaction on the Act's effectiveness.