Citizens of this nation access information from public authorities and entrench transparency and accountability to make democracy functional. The Supreme Court of India observed the Judges Transfer case- it is elementary for citizens to know what their government is doing to decide to whom and by what rules their governance is applied. The survival of a government without accountability, where citizens fail to use the basic postulation of accountability, isn’t used to know how democracy is assigned to make democracy participatory. A government that promises equitable development without transparency would be a farce, a tragedy, or perhaps both.
ALSO READ: Opinion | Byrnihat: India’s Most Polluted Town In 2024- A Wake-Up Call For The Northeast
Access to information is a mechanism exercised as a fundamental right enacted by the Parliament of India as the Right to Information Act 2005. Transparency is central to institutions, and their inability to answer the application questions undermines their credibility to erect a discontinuity between public stance and internal practices.
As people are masters, they have the right to know how the government functions to serve them. This enactment aims to limit corruption and efficiency at various levels of administration. The assertion of the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on the application to know the conflict of interest between the chairperson, Madhabi Puri Buch and the Adani Group recused with the invocation of section 7(9) as resources of the public authority diverted disproportionately is a specimen.
Reason to Obtain Information
The Right to Information is the fundamental right enunciated under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The former Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, mandated timely responses to citizens who requested information from the public authorities. This situation has interchanged as recently, a judge from the Supreme Court scolded a young advocate for seeking information about a municipal corporation under the RTI, addressed as a classic case of misuse of the legislation. Further, the division bench from the Madras High Court ruled applicants need to offer reasons to seek information as the law doesn’t give information to a person careless about the object on pamphlets.
The address of judges to obtain information is against provision 6(2) of the Right to Information Act, where applicants who request information aren’t required to provide any reason or personal details. A strong call on the information came from Retired Justice K.K. Matthew in 1975, who emphasised there can be few secrets, and with continuance, Retired Justice Ravindra Bhatt explained that rights-based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, which needs liberal interpretation. The citizens have the right to know every public act; which is performed by functionaries. The right to know derives from the concept of freedom of speech isn’t absolute as secrecy claimed for transactions has no repercussion on public security.
One of the observations of the Supreme Court by public servants opposing the disclosure of information to citizens created confidentiality of information as an exemption not anticipated by the parliament. The intention to seek information needs to meet the standard to improve transparency and eradicate corruption, but cases of oppression and intimidation of public officials are not registered. Along with that, numerous cases related to RTI activists and applicants getting murdered, assaulted, and threatened are not accentuated. This situation turned a blind eye as observations of the Supreme Court of India are used to recognise the Right to Information as a fundamental right on a case-to-case basis. Shailesh Gandhi, an RTI activist, argues that the narrative constructed around the Right to Information makes it subservient to the Right to Speak and publish to bespeak applicants and activists obstructing national development and integrity.
Data Law holds the Information Law
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, passed in the parliament, will affect the Right to Information Act 2005. The conflict surfaced due to Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India; while writing a minority opinion, Justice Subba Rao, in the Kharak Singh case, explained liberty in Article 21 is comprehensive to include privacy, a quintessential ingredient of personal liberty. While prolonging the subject, a person cannot be deprived of their personal freedom; the only anomaly is the procedure established by law. However, the Supreme Court enunciated in their observation that the procedure established by the law needs to be fair, even-handed, and reasonable, which cannot be fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.
Provision section 44 is not standalone; the Data Act 2023 and other provisions would seriously impact the Right to Information Act. The amendment of section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act 2005 due to section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 will turn information legislation into denial of information, and authorities can refuse to share valuable information using corruption as a justification.
The meaning of data, person, and personal data breach under provisions sections 2(h), 2(s), and 2(u), respectively, will limit the power of the RTI. The words used in other provisions, such as section 16 or 17, such as may or may be prescribed, give power or dangerous power to public authorities of the Union Ministries. Furthermore, Rule 22 of the DPDP 2025 violates the Right to privacy as a reasonable restriction is absent, where the state can make surveillance with unbridled powers exercised opaquely overriding the rights granted in the RTI.
This narrative built by the establishment needs to be questioned because the understanding of freedom of speech and expression has increased with the interpretation of the Supreme Court of India. The Right to Information Act 2005 empowers citizens; there are several achievements under its credit, which other legislations don’t have as this availed as a weapon to expose deficiencies and malpractices in public governance. Hence, protection from arbitrariness is necessary before the legislation turns fragile beyond the permissibility of the Constitution of India.
(All views and opinions expressed are author’s own)
