Exemptions under Right to Information Act, 2005, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Media Laws and Ethics

Download Exemptions under Right to Information Act, 2005 and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Media Laws and Ethics in PDF only on Docsity! UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH In partial fulfilment of requirements for the syllabus of B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), 7th Semester SUBJECT: RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND MEDIA LAW TOPIC OF THE ASSIGNMENT: EXEMPTIONS UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. SUBMITTED BY: KAMALPREET KAUR COURSE: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) ROLL NO: 251/20 SECTION: C SEMESTER: 7TH SUBMITTED TO: MS. PREETI BANSAL 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Presentation, inspiration, and motivation have always played an important key role in the success of any venture. The hard work reaps fruits with the kind support of many individuals. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them. Foremost, I want to offer this endeavour to God for the wisdom he bestowed upon me, the strength, the peace of my mind and good health in order to finish this assignment work. I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Sarabjit Kaur, Director, University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh. I pay my deep sense of gratitude to Ms. Preeti Bansal, Professor, Right to Information and Media Law, University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh for her guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding this project and also her support in completing this endeavour. I am also thankful to her for imparting her knowledge and expertise in this study. I am highly indebted to my family for this encouragement which held me in my completion of this project. I am also grateful to the entire distinguished Faculty of the University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my friends who have willingly and constantly helped me out with their abilities. 2 ABSTRACT The Right to Information Act 2005 could be a prevalent, citizen-centric, and change-oriented law in India's regulatory history.1 It advances straightforwardness and responsibility within the working of public authorities, permitting citizens to address, review, audit, look at, and evaluate government acts and choices. The act was sanctioned by the Joined together United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government, headed by Dr M Manamohan Singh, after a long and fast discussion. The RTI Act was affirmed by Parliament after a marathon dialogue. The prior Freedom of Information Act 2002, which had been affirmed by the President of India, was supplanted with the RTI Act on October 12, 2005. The act effectively completed ten a long time in 2015, and its ubiquity and clients are quickly increasing. The concept of the Right to Information began in the 1970s through magnanimous elucidation by the legal in different Fundamental Rights, especially the proper flexibility of speech and expression. In the case of Bennett Coleman and Co versus Union of India in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that data gathering could be a right of every person. In 1975 amid the National Crisis, the Incomparable Court of India pronounced that data gathering may be a right to each person. The essential reason for opportunity of discourse and expression is for all individuals to create their convictions and communicate them openly to others. The elemental rule included here is the people's right to know. Due to a need for clear enactment on this issue, individuals had to look for legitimate counsel from courts. In conclusion, the Right to Information 2005 has altogether affected India's majority rule preparation, advancing straightforwardness and responsibility in public authorities. 1 https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/critical-study-of-right-to-information-act-2005/  5 INTRODUCTION "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."- JUSTICE P N BHAGWATI Democracy means meaningful participation by the people in public affairs. A democratic government must be sensitive to the public opinion for which information must be sensitive to public opinion, for which information must be made available to the people. The Right to Information implies the participation of people in the process of governance and administration which becomes inevitable. The Right to Information is the only rightful law in India. This is the most popular, citizen-centric and change-oriented law in Indian administrative history. The Right to Information (RTI) Act influences the people and impacts Indian Administration in greater transparency in the functioning of public authorities; and disclosure of information regarding government rules, regulations and decisions, every public authority is mandated to maintain all records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the information right under the act. Information is nothing but knowledge, knowledge make man strong. If the Information is related to Government and Administration, the person becomes active in good governance and self-defensive and growing nature. The RTI act empowers the people of India against administrative corruption, irregularities and the irresponsive attitude of administrative machinery. The Right to Information promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. In other words, through this act, the citizens of India have been empowered to question, audit, review, examine and assess the government acts and decisions to ensure that these are consistent with the principle of public interest, good governance and justice. Enactment of Right to Information India always took pride in being the largest democracy, but with the passing of the Right to Information Act 2005, it has also become an accountable, interactive and participatory democracy. This Act applies to the whole nation except the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government headed by Dr M Manamohan Singh got approval by the Parliament after a speedy and marathon discussion. Dr. Manmohan Singh, the then Prime Minister of India, when bringing to light India's first significant step towards anti-corruption. The Right To Information Bill, said: " The passage of the Bill will see the dawn of a new era in our processes of governance, an era of performance and efficiency, benefits of growth will flow to all sections of the society, eliminate the scourge of corruption, and will bring the common man's concern to the heart of all processes of governance and fulfil the hopes of the founding fathers of our Republic."2 2 https://www.boloji.com/articles/10290/the-right-to-information-act 6 The Right to Information Bill having been passed by both the Houses of Parliament, received the assent of the President on 15th June 2005. It came on the Statute Book as THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 (22 of 2005). The basic objective of this Act is to harmonise the conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring transparency to bring in accountability and containing corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not harm or adversely effect other public interests which include efficient functioning of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, on the other hand; INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. SHAUNAK H. SATYA.3 The earlier Freedom of information act 2002 got the assent of the President of India but did not notify and finally replaced with the RTI act, it came in to force on October 12, 2005 and on the same day Mr.Shahid Raza Burney filed the very first RTI application in Pune Police station.4 The RTI Act successfully completed ten years in 2015. The popularity of this act and users of this law is rapidly increasing year by year. The concept of the Right to Information started taking shape in the 1970’s by a liberal interpretation by the judiciary of various Fundamental Rights especially the right to freedom of speech and expression. In the case of BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO VERSUS UNION OF INDIA IN 1973,4 the majority opinion of the Supreme Court then put it “Freedom of speech and expression includes within it compass the right of all citizens to read and be informed” In 1975 during National Emergency, Supreme Court of India dictate in a case judgement, Information gathering is a right to every person. The 1981 court judgement in Manubhai Shah versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) reaffirmed the point. The basic purpose of freedom of speech and expression is that all members should be able to form their beliefs and communicate them freely to others. In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people's right to know. There have been numerous cases favouring disclosure of Government information and transparency. As a result of a lack of clear legislation on this, people had to knock at the doors of courts every time they wanted to enforce this right. Courts have almost always responded positively. But this course at best restricted enforcement to the aware and the literate for their own limits concerns. The common citizen had neither the means nor the time and inclination to get into a convoluted legal process and even PIL was a tool which could reach only a few elite people. The movement for the RTI received a fresh impetus from the courageous and powerful roots struggle of the rural poor to combat rampant corruption in famine relief works. This struggle was led by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS).5 The reverberation of this struggle led to a nationwide demand for a law to guarantee the RTI to every citizen.5 For the first time Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended to establish a law for public information6, later on many social organisations started a movement to the right to information. Action group for RTI, Soochnaka Addhikar Abhiyan, National 3 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya, AIR 2011 SC 3336 : (2011) 8 SCC 781 : JT 2011 (10) SC 128: (2011) 9 SCALE 639. 4 Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors 1973 AIR 106, 1973 SCR (2) 757 5 MKSS, was instrumental in drawing the attention of the public to demand for a Right to Information, especially in Rajasthan, where its base is very strong 7 (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Commercial Confidence, Trade Secrets, Intellectual Property [Section 8(1)(d)]: Information related to commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property that, if disclosed, would harm the competitive position of a third party is exempt. However, it can be disclosed if the competent authority determines that there is a larger public interest in its release. (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Fiduciary Relationship [Section 8(1)(e)]: Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship is exempt unless the competent authority justifies that a larger public interest warrants its disclosure. This protects confidential relationships. CASE LAWS: 1. In SHRI RAJENDRA JHALANI VS PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER UNION BANK OF INDIA, Appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO seeking a copy of the Will, duly certified by the bank, made by his late mother in respect of a joint property, to enable him to submit the same in a court of law for division of his mother's share. The FAA forwarded a copy of CPIO's reply to the appellant along with a copy of letter written to the third party to seek his consent for disclosure of information. CIC upheld the decision of FAA. (f) information received in confidence from foreign governments; Information Received in Confidence from Foreign Government [Section 8(1)(f)]: Information received in confidence from a foreign government is exempt from maintaining diplomatic relations and international cooperation. (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes, then public authority is exempted from disclosure of such information.; Endangering Life or Physical Safety [Section 8(1)(g)]: Information that, if disclosed, could pose a risk to the safety of individuals or reveal confidential sources of information or assistance provided for law enforcement or security purposes.  The meaning of LIFE under Article 21 is given an expansive and liberal construction such as to include, including the right to live with dignity, right to shelter, right to basic needs and even the right to reputation. This meaning is applicable to section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.  ‘PHYSICAL SAFETY’ means the likelihood of assault on physical existence of a person.  Information putting an individual's safety or liberty at risk, e.g., the identity of people who blow the whistle on corruption inside their organization should be protected, because otherwise they may be targeted for discrimination or even violence. CASE LAWS: 1. In CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR. V. ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY AND ORS, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that access to evaluated copies can be allowed only to the extent of answer book which does not contain any information or signature or initials of the examiners/coordinators/ scrutinizers/head examiners disclosing their identity. 2. In BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. SAIYED HUSSAIN ABBAS RIZWI, marks obtained by a person can be disclosed but the disclosure of individual names and marks 10 they awarded would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for the proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act. (h) information which would impede the process of investigation apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Impeding Investigation or Prosecution [Section 8(1)(h)]: Information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders is exempt to ensure the effectiveness of law enforcement. Public authority is not under obligation to furnish information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.  The definition of “investigation‟ under CrPC can be applicable to RTI Act also. It would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications and so on.  When the investigation is in progress, information which needs to be protected, such as witnesses’ identities, circumstances being put together against a suspect, etc. cannot be disclosed. CASE LAWS: 1. In B.S. MATHUR V. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF DELHI HIGH COURT , the High Court of Delhi has held that the mere pendency of an investigation or inquiry is by itself not a sufficient justification for withholding information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would impede or even on a lesser threshold, hamper or interfere with the investigation 2. In SARVESH KAUSHAL V. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, the Central Information Commission has held that documents relating to the departmental enquiry are exempted from disclosure pending departmental enquiry by virtue of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations, which come under the specified exemptions; Cabinet Papers and Deliberations [Section 8(1)(i)]: Cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries, and other officers, are exempted to protect the decision-making process within the government. (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Personal Information and Privacy [Section 8(1)(j)]: Information related to an individual's personal life or privacy, which is not connected to any public activity or interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy, is exempted. CASE LAWS: 1. In K.S. JAIN VS. CPIO, BSNL, The petitioner, who had also filed a complaint against a minister for corruption, sought a copy of the final order settling the case. CIC said that the information sought by the petitioner/complainant and the action taken by the Ministry regarding disclosure to third parties was personal and this could be justified as the petitioner did not disclose the larger purpose to the public. Pursuant to Article 8(1)(j) of the Act to avoid publicity.11 11 https://www.istm.gov.in/rti_portal/cms/78/3 11 2. EMAM NAJIR MIRZA VS CPIO & DGM(ADMN.) BSNL MAHARASHTRA, The petitioner filed an RTI application and sought details of incoming, outgoing and missed calls on three mobile numbers - PIO rejected them under the RTI Act - The commission said BSNL is responsible for protecting the privacy of its customers and information related to calls. Telephone numbers of telephone users should not be disclosed to third parties exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless the person seeking the information is the person seeking the information. can prove it. Greater public interest in these statements.12 Section 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. PUBLIC INTEREST OVERRIDE: Importantly, the RTI Act, includes a provision that allows a public authority to disclose information even if it falls under the aforementioned exemptions if there is a greater public interest in its disclosure that outweighs the harm to protected interests. Public Interest Exception: Regardless of the Official Secrets Act or any other exceptions mentioned earlier, if disclosing information is more important for the public good than keeping it secret, a public authority can choose to share that information. Section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. ACCESS TO OLD INFORMATION: In general, information about events or matters that happened twenty years ago must be provided to anyone who asks for it under section 6 of the RTI Act. If there's any question about how to calculate this twenty-year period, the Central Government's decision is final, but you can still appeal this decision as provided by this Act. Section 9 Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases: Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. Sec. 9 of the RTI 2005 lays down that any information, whose copyright is not held by the state, cannot be provided by it under any circumstances. This exemption laid down in the RTI 2005 is not a qualified exemption, but rather an absolute one. It is primarily intended to prevent misuse of the RTI 2005 by the Governmental agencies, especially in matters of infringement of copyright and the like WHO IS EXCLUDED? Section 24 read with Schedule 2 contains the 22 organizations names of the Intelligence and Security organizations which are exempt from the purview of the Act. However, these agencies do not enjoy absolute immunity. These agencies have to provide information regarding any allegation of corruption or acts of human rights violation sought by citizens. It dictates that the intelligence and security organisations cannot fall under the purview of this act. It also makes a statement to the effect that any information given by such agencies to the Government too would be outside the scope of the applicability of this act. These organizations are sought to be mentioned in Second Schedule of the RTI 2005. However, the Section also lays down a proviso to prevent the basic aim of the act from being violated by declaring that allegations of 12 https://www.istm.gov.in/rti_portal/cms/78/3 12 Apart from what's mentioned in Section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer can turn down a request for information if granting access would violate someone else's copyright, not owned by the government. [Section 9]. THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION The provisions related to third-party information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 are primarily covered in Section 11 of the Act. Section 11 outlines the procedure to be followed when a request for information involves third-party information. Third-party information under the RTI (Right to Information) Act, 2005 refers to data or records held by a public authority that pertain to individuals, entities, or organizations other than the individual who initiated the RTI request or the public authority itself. Essentially, it encompasses information that concerns someone or something external to the requestor or the government body. When a Public Information Officer (PIO) receives an RTI application seeking information that may affect the rights or interests of a third party, the PIO is required to give a written notice to that third party. This notice should include details of the requested information and invite the third party to make a submission or an objection regarding the disclosure of the information. The third party is given a reasonable opportunity to present their views and objections within a specified time frame, typically within 10 days from the date of receiving the notice. After considering the third party's objections, if any, the PIO makes a decision regarding the disclosure of the information. If the PIO decides to disclose the information despite the objections, they must provide reasons for their decision. The PIO then communicates the decision to both the RTI applicant and the third party. Both the RTI applicant and the third party have the right to appeal against the PIO's decision. If either party is dissatisfied with the decision, they can file an appeal with a higher authority within the same public authority. In the case Central PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER V. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL, 2019 SCC Online SC 1459, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and including Justices NV Ramana, Dr DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, and Sanjiv Khanna, determined that the office of the Chief Justice of India falls within the scope of the Right to Information. The Supreme Court of India has not declared the Right to Information (RTI) as a fundamental right. However, in the case of STATE OF U.P. V. RAJ NARAIN (1975), the court recognized the right to information as an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The court held that citizens have a right to know about the activities of the government, which is necessary for a functioning democracy. The right to information extends to only such information as is held or under the control of the concerned public authority. PRABHAT KUMAR V. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, decided on 06.07.2009 (CIC). 15 CONCLUSION The Right to Information Act, of 2005 was enacted with the purpose to provide information to the citizens of India. Every citizen of India has a right to get information that is needed but every right has its exemption with it. If there is no exemption it can lead to problems in the country. Though RTI is a milestone yet it has issues and challenges in its execution and implementation, especially in a Democracy like India. It's crucial to strike the right balance between transparency and protecting legitimate interests. Exemptions should be narrowly defined and should not be used to hide corruption, inefficiency, or wrongdoing. They should be subject to strict scrutiny, and public authorities should not misuse them to withhold information that should rightfully be disclosed. The RTI Act, 2005 does provide for exemptions, and these exemptions are periodically reviewed and revised to ensure they align with the principles of transparency and accountability. Striking the right balance between access to information and exemptions is an ongoing challenge, and it requires continuous evaluation and improvement to ensure that the Act serves its intended purpose effectively. 16 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/05/09/latest-judgments-of-supreme-court-and- high-courts-on-right-to-information-act/ 2. Notification No. 541-PAR (AR)/O/3M-29/2005 Pt, VILLA dated, Kolkata- the 29th August, 2006, Kolkata Gazette 3. Commentary on The Right to Information Act, 2005, N.K. Acharya 4. The Right to Information Act, Usha Jaganath Law Series 5. https://www.boloji.com/articles/10290/the-right-to-information-act 6. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/05/09/latest-judgments-of-supreme-court-and- high-courts-on-right-to-information-act/ 7. https://www.istm.gov.in/rti_portal/cms/78/3 8. https://www.lawxpertsmv.com/post/exemptions-under-right-to-information-act-2005 9. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data? actid=AC_CEN_26_36_00004_200522_1517807322955&orderno=8 10. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l345-Exemptions-from-disclosure-of-information- under-RTI-.html 11. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13692-rti-act-2005-exemptions-refusal-to- provide-information-third-party-information.html 17