THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 – IMPACT ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS BY - MALAVIKA SK
THE RIGHT
TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 – IMPACT ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF
INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
AUTHORED BY
- MALAVIKA SK
Abstract
This paper belongs to the subject of
administrative law, under which it studies the Right to Information Act of 2005
and its impact on the accountability and transparency of India’s administrative
decisions. This paper addresses the positive and negative impacts of the Act
based on the analysis of legislative ambiguities, procedural irregularities and
judicial pronouncements. There have been previous studies on the general impact
and efficiency of the Act regarding comparison with foreign legislations and
comparative analysis of the before and after effects of the Act. The main goal
of this research is to expand on the ambiguity in the wording of the Act, the
political hindrances faced by the Act in its implementation, and how the
judicial judgment has facilitated or hindered its functioning. This research
uses secondary data for research, and it is found that though the RTI is the
most powerful tool to get a transparent government, the people are still in the
dark on how to use the tool properly, and the government authorities use this lack
of knowledge to their advantage. It is important for the government to create awareness
about the Act among people and students through media, NGOs and educational institutions
and also establish a monitoring system to ensure proper maintenance of public
records.
Keywords: RTI, Right to Information Act 2005,
accountability, transparency, citizens, Information Officer, Information
Commission, RTI Application
1. Introduction
Does a democratic society's effective
functioning depend on the free flow of information? In 2005, the Right to
Information Act (RTI) was passed in India to provide its citizens more and free
access to what was previously only considered 'governmental information' so
that the government would be more responsive and transparent. Implementing this
Act is regarded as a significant step in enhancing India's democratic stand
because it increases the transparency and accountability of the government. The
RTI is not a new concept in the Indian legislature because the judiciary has
emphasised the basic scheme of this act through time, and only after the
judiciary established it as a fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a) of the
Constitution, this Act
was passed. Since democracy is a system of government run by the people's representatives,
it is crucial for the citizens who were promised good governance to have the right
to information to avoid the government's arbitrary exercise of discretionary power.
In this paper, the author will talk
about the situation preceding the commencement of the Act and the case laws
that made the legislation a reality. The main focus of this paper will be examining
the ambiguities in the Act and how it has impacted the accountability and
transparency of India’s administrative decisions - is it a positive or a
negative impact or somewhere in the middle with room for progressive
development based on case laws and other incidents that have happened since the
commencement of the Act till now. The paper will then further dive into the
role of media concerning the Act and the hindrances which affect the effective
implementation of the Act, also providing some suggestions to improve the efficiency
of the Act.
2. Literature Review
In the previous research on the Right
to Information Act, written by Dharanesha S Ton 'Implementation Of Right To
Information And Impact On Administration: A Case Study of Collegiate Education
and Revenue Departments in Karnataka' the main focus of the study has been on
the impact of the implementation of RTI in Aided degree colleges and Government
degree colleges in the Collegiate Education Department and District and Taluk
administration under the Revenue Departments. She has approached the topic with
secondary database methodology and focuses the institutional aspects of
application of this act. The part where the author talks about how the negative
impact of RTI on administration has created a lack of confidence in people is
the most relevant to our study. The author concluded that RTI is an effective
instrument in promoting the administration's transparency. Still, the proper
services have yet to reach the public under the Act due to the lack of
awareness.
Another journal article, written by
Smita Srivastava on 'The Right to Information in India: Implementation and
Impact', focuses on the implementation process and the procedural aspects of
the RTI Act. The study maps out the Act's before and after effects, which are relevant
to our study.
The paper 'Right To Information Act:
A Tool For Good Governance' by Rouf Ahmad Bhat emphasises the role of RTI in
good governance and that RTI helps promote democratic ideology. In the paper
written by Twinkle Shaji on 'A Revolutionary Move: The Right to Information
Act, 2005', a comparison between similar foreign legislations and RTI has been
drawn to check the functionality of the Act. The paper concluded similarly to Dharanesha’s
work by stating that people lack awareness of how to use this right despite the
right being granted to people after so many struggles.
In a journal article by Pushpraj
Singh on 'Fifteen Years Of Right To Information Act In India: A Long Way To Go',
the history of the RTI Act is explained along with the procedural aspects of
the Act. The paper also talks about the current challenges faced by the Act. It
suggests that government officials under the act must be trained based on the rules
and recent judgments to increase efficiency. It also suggests teaching the RTI as
a part of the curriculum to make the youth aware of their rights under this
act.
The main areas of debate under the RTI
Act have always been about the efficiency of its implementation, the lack of
awareness among the public on how to avail their rights, and the lack of training
of the public officers under the act and how its acts detrimental to the
objectives of the Act.
The existing gap is that there has
been significantly less extensive study on the ambiguity in the wording of the
Act, the political hindrances faced by the Act in its implementation, and there
is a thin knowledge of how the judicial judgment has facilitated or hindered
the functioning of the Act. This paper aims to address all those existing gaps to a possible
extent.
3. Objectives of the study
The objectives of the paper are;
-
To
examine the legislative ambiguity and gaps in the Right to Information Act,
2005 and its effect on the government.
-
To
explore the case laws and case studies which illustrate the Act's effect on the
government's transparency and accountability.
-
To
identify the socio-political hindrance faced in implementing the Right to
Information Act.
-
To
assess the role of Media in exploiting the Right to Information Act to hold
government authorities accountable.
-
To
provide suggestions for reforms or enhancement to further improve the efficiency
of the Right to Information Act.
4. Research Methodology
This paper involves the analysis of
secondary data sources to analyse the impact of the implementation of the Right
to Information Act on the accountability and transparency of the administrative
decisions of the government based on various statistics published by the
Government, soft copies of departmental annual reports of RTI, judgements of
Municipal Courts, High courts and Supreme Court. Other secondary sources such
as newspaper articles, published journal articles, books on administrative law
and statutes and website data were taken into consideration for analysing the
hindrances faced by the Act in its implementation.
5. Analysis
5.1 What Is The RTI Act And Its
Significance?
The Right to Information Act, grants
the Indian citizens access to governmental records and information leading to
the people of the country engaging in the governance indirectly and leading to
the development of the country inclusive of its citizens. The main reason
behind implementing the Act was that despite India being a democratic
government the administrative functioning of the government was not transparent
but opaque. In order o clear all the built-up fog and create a transparent operation
of government entities where the ordinary citizens have knowledge about how the
administrative or departmental choices are and how the resources are used by
the government. The RTI Act has so far played a critical role in the governance
of the country and has sparked quite a social revolution[1].
The Act was mainly introduced to hold
the government officials accountable towards the general public and encourage
the ordinary citizens to participate in the decisions making process of the
government leading to collaboration between them. This transparency would also
lead to reduction to corruption since the financial information held by any
governmental authority was made accessible to public. This Act acts as a system
of checks and balances in the democracy government by making the government
fear the leak of corrupt information and instilling a sense of accountability
towards the public.
The basic objective of the Act is to
‘empower the citizens’ to promote ‘promote transparency and accountability’ in
the working of the Government, ‘contain corruption’, and make our ‘democracy
work for the people’ in real sense[2].
5.2 Situation preceding the commencement of the Act
The RTI Act is a step taken by the
government towards a rudimentary goal of great importance to democracy. The
demand to know the so called 'inside information' of the administration of the
government began in the late 1990's. In Rajasthan, the workers belonging to the
Association for the Empowerment of Labourers and Farmers were the forerunners
of this idea of right to know. These workers demanded to know what was the
budget allocated by the government for the development work because they faced
wage disparity. They had no motive to raise their wages, but they simply wanted
to hold the government accountable for its corrupt practices.
Before a central legislation could be
passed on this account, nine states had already passed legislations enabling
their people with the right to know the information about the authorities of
their state.
Over the years, before the enactment
of this Act, the SC has consistently ruled in favour the citizens right to
information. The nature of this was such that is not absolute and constraint
shall be applicable to it. The point of debate in the court have been regarding
the constraint that shall be applicable to the right.
The legislative development of this
Act started when press petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging
the government orders for newsprint control, bans on paper distribution and
seeking logistics regarding it.
In the case of Indira Gandhi
v. Raj Narain[3],
the SC specified that it is a fundamental responsibility of the officials to
justify and explain the actions carried out by them in exercise of their public
function and that is a safeguard against oppression and corruption. The court
also added that covering everyday business of the government with a veil of secrecy
is not of public interest.
In the case of State of UP v
Raj Narain[4],
the supreme court held ‘right to know’ is an inherent right under Article 19
(1) (a). The court stated that in a
responsible government like ours, every action carried out by a public employee
in a public manner must be known by the people of the land and for such
functions the employee must also be held accountable. The court also added that
the citizens have the right to know the specifics of every public transaction. Justice
KK Mathew also stated that this right is not absolute and there shall be on
exemption made when secrecy is claimed by the government regarding transactions
that have no impact or bearing on public security. When this judgment was
given, India had just gotten out of two wards and information was precious
to its governance and ordering for public disclosure of such information is a
very bold move and it shows the progressive thought of the judiciary which
existed during that period and the lack of it now.
In the case of SP Gupta v.
Union of India[5],
the court describes that the right to know about the facts of every public
transaction is vested with the people. In this case, Justice Bhagawati stated
that "There can be little doubt that exposure to ‘public gaze and
scrutiny’ is one of the surest means of achieving a ‘clean and healthy
administration"
In the case of Union of
India v. Association for Democratic Reforms[6],
the SC held that the right of a voter to know about a candidate standing for
election falls under Article 19(1)(a),
But the problem was that, though
the judiciary recognised the right through the above cases, the people could
not access the right because there was no standard procedure. Due to lack
of Action from the government, the protest that started in Rajasthan grew
into a protest of national interest and became to be known as the RTI movement.
The slogan of this movement was, ‘the right to know, is the right to live[7].’
With the enactment of the Official
Secret Act,1923 the government denied to release the information termed by it
as “confidential”, which was considered a blow to the functioning of the
government basically wedded to democracy and transparency. After all these
struggles, the central legislation of Freedom of Information Act was enacted
in 2002. But this act was highly criticised because this Act did not
provide any penalties upon non-compliance with the rules and procedures of the
Act. This Act was simply a shell of what was promised to the public and did not
live upto its much-anticipated effect. After facing heavy criticism from the
public, the RTI Act was finally implemented in 2005, by the legislature.
5.3 Examining the Ambiguities of the Act and its Impact
To understand the paper, one must
first have knowledge about the elements of accountability which are;
answerability, enforcement and responsiveness. Transparency of information is
required to demand accountability.
As per Section 4 of the Act, the
government departments, have to Suo motto disclose certain information. By a
study by RAAG a non- governmental organisation it has been found that 50% of
the RTI applications are made due to the failure of the obligation of the
government under Section 4[8]. There
is no provision in the Act which condemns unwarranted delay in performing the
duties under the act by asking for bribes and as per the above-mentioned
study, 25% of the applications seek information regarding delay in the
processing of government identity cards for which government has not yet
replied properly.
Section 8(1)(j) of the Act states
that when a third party seeks 'personal information' about another person it
would amount to intrusion of privacy and thus exempted from the purview of the
Act. The CIC has defined intrusion of privacy but has not defined personal
information and this term is being very liberally interpreted and its scope
is being widened to protect the personal interest of the authorities. Thus,
to create a balance between both fundamental rights of right to privacy and
right to information, it is imminent to clearly define what falls under personal
information and what does not.
Under Section 26, the Act places
responsibility on the 'appropriate government' to prepare programmes with the
help of finances available to create awareness among the citizens about the
existence of the right to information and how such right can be accessed. With
the growing popularity of the internet era, this section might feel irrelevant.
But India with agriculture and villages as the backbone of its economy, cannot
deem the section to be irrelevant.
But so far due to the lack of steps
taken by government to create awareness regarding this, it is not only the
people in the villages who live in the dark without knowing their rights, it is
also the people who live in the urban areas who remain unaware about this right
being available to them. The lack of enforcement of this section acts as a deterrent
to the general scheme of the Act.
Then one of the most undesirable provisions
of the Action comes in the form of Section 23 where it puts a bar on the
jurisdiction of courts to review any order passed under the authority of the
Act. This increases the wide discretion of the administrative authorities and
enables to act arbitrarily or deny the information on baseless grounds due to
the absence of checks and balance system in the form of judicial review.
It is seen that what with the
frequent denial of information by the judicial decisions, there is a huge
proportional difference between the number of RTI applications filed and the
amount of information that is actually given out to the public. These
applications are simply rejected on the ground that it does not fall under the
term 'public authorities' under the Act, and it is accepted by people
because of the inefficiency of the government in creating awareness about how to
properly use the right. Also, Section
123 of the Indian Evidence Act, entitles the government to withhold information
with regards to some unpublished official records with regards to the matters
of the State which is also abused by the authorities to deny information to the
people. To put it simply the demand for information outweighs the supply[9].
The Indian governance and
Constitution has several aspects of 'Rule of Law' incorporated into it and it
also strictly follows the concept of natural justice both of which advocate
that a man shall not be a judge in his own case. But under this act, when a
citizen feels that his application was rejected without proper evaluation such
appeal lies to the administrative authority himself and it is such authorities
who also impose the penalties, all which is completely against natural justice
and rule of law which our justice system religiously follows.
As per the preamble of the Act, this
Act tries to establish a harmony between the people’s right to information and
the State’s security in the light of which twenty-five government agencies are
exempt from the purview of this Act. This could cause a hindrance to the
objective of the Act, but with the nation's security secrets already being
leaked having such information freely accessible could lead to national threat
so such exemption are justifiable to an extent. Immediately following the
implementation of the Act, when army refused to grant information despite not
being one of the agencies exempted by the Act, the then PM intervened and
stated that Army shall not refuse to share information unless entitled to
refuse by a government notification.
5.4 Impact of Procedural
Irregularities under the Act
For the functioning of the Act, there
has to be an Information Commission set up and PIO (Public Information Officer)
at the centre and state levels. But the set-up commission is not efficient and only
hear almost 3 - 4 cases a day. The officers have a lethargic attitude and the
applications and files are not maintained properly and are often lost. Even
when found guilty the Commissioners don’t impose penalty on officers due to
bias and this causes the PIO under the Act to refuse sharing the information at
the very base level.
The CIC most often passes order
without even hearing both sides, and out of over 2000 cases decided by CIC only
6% have imposed penalties[10].
Every day almost 4,800
applications are filed across India. The study by the Economic Times, 2016
point out that the actual number of RTI applications filed might be actually
higher than accounted for since many authorities do not properly file an annual
report as per Section 25 of the Act.
In villages, the village secretaries
are supposed to function as the information officers but as per the statement
given by State Information Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh, in numerous villages
it is the village sarpanch who function as IOs which is blatant violation of
law. Indian Express in 2008 stated in an article that, the SIO of UP
expressed that a lot of cases are pending due to the lack of staff like data
operator or web designer. There have been cases where people who file
applications under the Act were bullied and extorted. There was a case in Bihar
where a activist was extorted a sum of Rs. 78,21,252 by the supply officer to
provide information on distribution of food grain and kerosene under the Public
Distribution System (PDS) in Bihar.
On the other hand, there have also
been positive impacts of RTI when in 2007 a scam of Rs.6000 Crores was
prevented by data obtained by citizens under the RTI Act to question the
elected representatives. The RTI has also now been made to work hand in hand
with the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)[11].
5.5 Judicial interpretation of the Act
Although Section 23 puts a bar on the
jurisdiction of the court, the provisions of the Act are still subject to
judicial review under Article 13 of the Constitution.
In the case of Secretary
General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal[12],
the petition was filed to Central Information Commission (CIC) seeking
information of the funding of major political parties and whether or not they
have followed up on their election manifestos. The Delhi HC, in this
case took a liberal interpretation of the term 'public authorities' under
section 2(h) of the Act to include political parties and directed the CIC to
assign CPIO to give out answers to the RTI applications. In this case the judge
also pointed out that this right to information does not only arise from the
statute but from the many judgments passed before the commencement of the Act. However,
by an amendment in 2013 political parties have been removed from the purview of
public authorities under the Act.
In the case of the CPIO,
Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr[13],
the petition was filed to know information about the Collegium decision making
process of appointment to SC. The Delhi HC held that Chief Justice of India is
a public authority under the RTI Act and that CJI was not a separate entity.
In the case of Reserve Bank
of India v. Jayantilal Mistry[14],
the issue was whether RBI and other banks deny information on the grounds of
economic interest commercial confidence and fiduciary relationship with another
Bank. The court in this case held that the RBI has to act in public interest
and it is RBI's statutory duty to comply with the provisions of the Act. The
court also stated that RBI cannot claim the ground of fiduciary relationship
since it does not deal with other financial institutions on the pretext of
trust.
Despite these progressive judgements,
many court pronouncements in the past decade has restricted the scope of
this fundamental as well as statutory right. When a writ petition is filed
before the HC challenging the decisions of CIC, in most of the cases a stay is
obtained ex-parte.
The act under Section 22 provides
that this Act shall have overriding effect to all previous laws and also states
that no information shall be denied except for those matters mentioned under
Section 8 and 9 of the Act.
The judgments by SC in the recent
years have stated that Section 8 of the Act provides exception to Section 3 of
the Act which provides right to information and so Section 8 must be
interpreted in a narrow and strict manner (Central Board Of Secondary Education vs
Aditya Bandopadhyay). In the same judgment another strong statement
was given; "The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of
public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing
information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties[15]"
In the case of Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors[16],
the Court exempted copies of all memos, show cause notices and orders of
censure/punishment, assets, income returns, details of gifts received by a
public servant from the purview of the Act by bringing them under the
exemptions provided under Section 8 by classifying them as 'personal
information.' This is in contrary to the late 1990's judgments of SC where it
was strongly held by the court that privacy cannot be claimed by public
servants for personal information on public records. This judgement has
deviated from the proviso clause of Section 8 (1) (j).
5.6 Other Socio-political Hindrances faced in the Act's
Implementation
The 2020 pandemic brought forth a
major failure of the information regime. The data on number of migrant workers
being affected by the pandemic, Covid-19 treatment centres and decision-making
process of the administration regarding the PPE kits were all not made
available in the public domain through website portals like it should have and
any effort made by the public to obtain the information was also curbed by the authorities
so as to hide the inefficiency of the ruling government. During the
pandemic, instead of making the citizens get the manipulated news through TV
channels and newspapers it should have been made available to the public by RTI
and even more so if an application has been specifically filed for it.
Another political hindrance of RTI
came in the form of PM Cares Fund. Any information regarding the fun was denied
by stating that it does not fall under the purview of public authority under
the Act, although the fund is supposed to exclusively utilised for the
wellbeing of the people during crisis. This is nothing but an escape tactic by
the ruling government. Several State ICs did not function during the pandemic
and although CIC functioned through video calls, with the retirement of the
Chief Information Commissioner in August 2020, made the CIC also useless. The
ruling government failed to provide proper online facilities to the functioning
SIC to hear matters on a priority basis.
There has been an increase in the
number of attacks on the RTI Activists who take it upon themselves to clean the
corrupt system of public administration in India. Amit Jethgwa, an RTI Activist
was shot dead near Gujarat HC when he fought against the mining mafia in Gir
Forests[17].
There is also no protection to RTI
officers under the Act and they are often harassed for acting as whistleblowers
when in reality they are only performing their duties under the Act. This was clearly seen when
Satyendra Dubet, who was the projector director of NHAI was killed in Bihar and
Manjunath Shammugham, an Indian Oil Corporation sales manager was killed for
exposing the involvement of mafia in adulteration of petrol. This is one of
the reasons why 30% of the information obtained under the Act is often
misleading or incomplete. There is no mechanism to check the whether the
applicant got the information within 30 days and if such information is
legitimate.
5.7 Role of Media in exploiting the rights under the Act
Apart from aiding the citizens, the
RTI will also enable the media to be more entitled to ask questions to the
government regarding its current state of affairs. It also helps the media get
information from legitimate sources rather than depending upon rumours and
leaks. With the information available to the citizens at large, even an
individual can take up journalism and this is often called as “citizen
journalism[18].”
The Press Council in March 2001,
stated that a legislation on Right to Information Legislation is vital for the
media because at that time media faced the issue of getting access to official
information and it affected the investigative, analytical and popular
journalism.
In the case of Secretary,
Ministry of I & B, Government of India v Cricket Association of Bengal[19],
it was held by the SC that Freedom of speech and expression includes right to
acquire information and to disseminate it. Thus, emphasising on the media's
right to use RTI professionally.
Media is one such entity that
actually takes full advantage of RTI which is a very powerful weapon in its
hands. Under the Act, the media can demand data regarding any of the
governmental department, photocopies of government contracts and payment
estimates, certified samples of material used in the construction of roads,
drains, buildings, status of requests or complaints, details of time delays,
actions taken on information, communications and decisions.
However, while publishing any such
information and playing the role of a bridge between the citizens and the
government as the 4th pillar the media has to always follow the constitutional
mandate and ethical code of conduct of media bodies strictly, failure of which
is punishable under Indian Penal Code.
When NDTV broadcasted 'private
information' which lead to the Pathankot terror attack in 2016, the I&B
ministry prohibited the transmission of the channel for one day in India. This
shows that RTI when it comes to media is not absolute and the media has to be
even more responsible when dealing with sensitive information.
When there arose a conflict between
RTI and the Official Secret Act 1923, the SC held in favour of RTI with the
interest of public at large. In this case, 'THE HINDU' newspaper leaked the photographs
of agreement between the two countries regarding the purchase of rafale
aircraft fighter jets. The Court held that though illegally obtained the
classified document can be placed before court and shall not be protected under
the Official Secret Act.
6. Suggestions and Conclusion
The public records system has to be
reorganised so that it is much easier to provide the information sought for
under the RTI Act and an authority to monitor these records must be set up at
municipal and state levels. The CIC members must be appointed from a
non-administrative or civil service background with field knowledge to avoid
biases. The government with support of educational institutions and NGOs should
educate the youth and public about how to access their rights under this Act
because as per statistics only 10% of our land's population have knowledge
about the RTI Act. The scope of the Act must be made clear that it extends to
all three wings of the government including the functioning of the judiciary. The
PIO has to be put through a dedicated training programme before their
appointment to polish their skills. The appeal system must be made time bound.
The implementation of this Act is one
of the most radical actions taken by the legislature in the recent history.
This Acts aids in good governance of the government and has led to increased
trust between the government and the people of the land. This Indian legislation is applauded for being
at par or for being better than many world legislations with the Act's main
scheme being that there is no democracy without informed citizens. An RTI
regime can enable the media to evidence-based and factual reporting on
important issues in relation to public interest. It can help the media to
expose defects in administration and corruption. On the other hand, it is much
more important that the media plays the role of an honest broker of information
without any favouritism.
No matter how progressive the intent
of the legislation is, if it is not implemented properly and if it is not
allowed to function it its proper capacity, the legislation is nothing but a
piece of paper. A transparent government is a dream that within hands reach
through this legislation. But owing to people's ignorance the government is
trying its best to limit the scope and applicability of the act through its
action which remain undisputed.
7. References
Statutes
The Constitution of India, 1950
The Right to Information Act, 2005
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Official Secrets Act, 1923
Websites
https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-of-the-right-to-information-act-2005/
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5023-rti-act-and-constitution-of-india-an-
https://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/the-legality-and-the-reality-role-of-media-and-the-right-to-information
[1] Kartik Kachhawah, Right to Information Act: A
Multi-Dimensional Approach towards Good Governance, LAWOCTOPUS, (November 13,
2015), https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/right-to-information-act/
[3] Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain, 1975
SCC (2) 159 (India)
[4] State Of U.P vs Raj Narain &
Ors, (1975) 3 SCR 333 (India)
[5] S.P. Gupta v. Union of India,
(1982) 2 SCR 365 (India)
[6] Union of India v. Association for
Democratic Reforms, (1982) 2 SCR 365 (India)
[7] Twinkle Shaji, A Revolutionary Move: The Right to
Information Act, 2005, 4 IJLMH 2861, 2865-2868 (2021)
[8] Shailesh Gandhi, Will the Right to Information Act
Become the Right to Denial of Information Act?, LEAFLET, (December 9, 2020),
https://theleaflet.in/will-the-right-to-information-act-become-the-right-to-denial-of-information-act/#:~:text=The%20law%20has%20strong%20provisions,of%20Section%208%20or%209.
[9] KEY ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS IN IMPLEMENTING THE RTI
ACT, https://rti.gov.in/rticorner/studybypwc/key_issues.pdf (last accessed 30th
September, 2023)
[10] Kejriwal Arvind, “RTI Act, One Year of Unfreedom”,
Combat Law Magazine March 1 2007,
www.doccentre.org/.../DP-LR-issuewise-articles-AH1.php accessed on 3.7.10
[11] Smita Srivastava, The Right to Information in India:
Implementation and Impact, 1 AAJSS, 2229, 2235-2240 (2010)
[12] Secretary General, Supreme Court
of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 (India)
[13] The CPIO, Supreme Court of India
v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, judgment
pronounced on 13-11-19 (India)
[14] Reserve Bank of India v.
Jayantilal Mistry, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 OF 2015 (India)
[15] Central Board Of Secondary Education vs Aditya
Bandopadhyay, Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (India)
[16] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs.
Central Information Commission & Ors, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
27734 of 2012 (India)
[17] Pushparaj Singh, Fifteen Years of
Right to Information Act in India: A Long Way to Go, 17 TAOHRJ 346, 356–360
(2021)
[18] Bhushita Sharma et al, Right To Information And Media
– Indian Perspective, 4 IJLLR 2582, 2587 (2022)
[19] Secretary, Ministry of I & B,
Government of India v Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995 2 SCC 161(India)