In the vast tapestry of democratic countries, transparency is often acclaimed as the primary component of effective governance. It is the tool that gives people the ability to hold their government responsible and guarantees that the halls of power are kept open and well-lit. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, which was passed in 2005, was heralded as a revolutionary law that would provide hope to those who wished to break through the barrier of bureaucratic opacity. The Act aims to foster transparency, accountability, empowerment of citizens, and strengthening of democratic values. By giving the citizens access to information held by public authorities, the legislation aims to reduce corruption and promote an open culture. But as we delve deeper into this maze of the RTI Act, an unsettling fact becomes apparent: the tool for transparency that seems so strong is actually tainted by its own inefficiency.

The RTI Act may have been created with good intentions, but there have been many difficulties putting it into practice. The promised transparency often gives way to administrative obstacles, untimely responses, and a lingering sense of discontent among the people it is supposed to assist. This article aims to analyze the RTI’s shortcomings and the difficulties it encounters in accomplishing its stated objectives in an effort to critically examine the causes of its apparent inefficiency.

History of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

The Right to Information Act was passed by the Parliament in 2005. It received presidential assent on June 15, and was brought into effect on October 12. While the Act was passed in 2005, its history dates back to the 1990s, where the demand of activists and members of the civil society for transparency and the right to information gained momentum. It was acknowledged that in order for a democracy to function, a legal framework that would make it easier for citizens to access information held by public authorities was necessary. Some Indian states had already passed their own Right to Information laws before the federal RTI Act was passed. The beneficial effects of such laws in fostering transparency and holding public officials accountable were illustrated by these state-level initiatives.

During the rising momentum, one of the cases that was quite significant in the context of the RTI Act was the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain[1], which was related to the ideas of government accountability and transparency. The case deals with a political leader, Raj Narain, who filed a writ petition to obtain a copy of the inquiry commission’s report into charges of corrupt practices against the then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, during the general elections of 1971. In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld citizens’ right to information and declared that the public has a right to know the truth about the public officials’ actions. This case advanced the conversation on government transparency and established the groundwork for the right to information.

Entering the 2000s, the Right to Information (RTI) was acknowledged as a constitutionally guaranteed right. One such example can be seen in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms[2], where the Court considered the extent of citizens’ right to vote in relation to the right to know about candidates running for State Legislature or Parliamentary seats. The Court interpreted this right as originating from the more general freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and held that the voters have a fundamental right to know the backgrounds of candidates running for public office.

An important component of India’s democratic framework, the Right to Information Act, 2005, gives citizens the ability to obtain information, hold public officials responsible, and support more open and participatory governance.

RTI’s Slow Death:

Encouraging citizens to seek information from public authorities is the fundamental goal of the Right to Information Act of 2005. As a result, it encourages accountability and openness in government operations and actually makes Indian democracy function for the people. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister's Office rejected a request for information about the PM Cares Fund, which goes against a fundamental tenet of the RTI Act. The PM Cares Fund is not a public authority, it was declared. Additionally, the State Bank of India declined to provide these particulars, citing the fact that they were third-party data held in a fiduciary capacity. This focuses on just one of the many problems with the RTI Act. Therefore, it is imperative to address the fundamental problems that hinder the RTI Act's effectiveness given the significance of public access to information.

“The Right to Information law, meant to empower Indians and bring transparency in governance appeared to be losing steam with the number of queries going down mainly because of stonewalling of information by officials and slow disposal of appeals, studies based on government data show.

The information watchdog, the Central Information Commission (CIC), in a report released in March, said the number of applications seeking information from the Central Government departments has gone down for the first time since the ground-breaking law was enacted in 2005.”[3]

To understand further as to why RTI is dying a slow death, we can trace back to the days of demonetisation. Following the demonetization of currency, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) consistently denied RTI applications, citing spurious claims that revealing the data would "prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence"[4] – all of which are covered by Section 8 of the RTI Act, which lists exemptions. The RBI filed a lawsuit and won a stay after the CIC ordered it to produce the list of wilful loan defaulters. Ultimately, the RBI released the list in accordance with the Supreme Court's orders.

The most important issue pertaining to the ineffectiveness of the RTI Act is the problem of violent crimes and threats directed towards RTI activists. At least 86+ individuals who had submitted RTI applications have died in the past 15-17 years, and more than 200 have been attacked. Several applicants claimed to have experienced harassment, and at least seven applicants have committed suicide.

There are significant obstacles facing the Right to Information Act of 2005, which aims to promote openness and citizen empowerment. Its effectiveness is undermined by instances of official opposition, judicial opacity, and threats to activists. Upholding democratic ideals and guaranteeing public access to essential information require addressing these systemic problems in order to revitalize the RTI Act.

Reasons for the Lack of Responses under the Act:

1. Lack of Speedy Responses –

The current system in place is inadequate for the Information Commission in order to review how such an important provision of this Act is being adhered to. It usually takes 30 days (or 35-40 days) for the Information Commission to take notice of the Public Authority failing to provide the information required for the appeal or complaint filed within the stipulated timeframe of 30 days. In a study by the RTI to understand the follies in the response system, it was inferred that more than half of those citizens who filed complains failed to receive the information they were seeking from the Public Information Officer (PIO) within 30 days.[5] The information seekers from the backward classes faced a similar fate in regard to the response time when compared to other communities.

As per the survey done by the RTI in order to recognise the reasons for its infectivity, the PIO highlighted that it was due to the poor management of past records that they are unable to provide the information within 30 days. Alongside that it is already known with certitude that the government has a poor record management system in place. The situation is further worsened when there is an unavailability of trained PIOs as well as adequate infrastructure such as computers, stable and uninterrupted data and internet connection, photocopy machines, scanners, etc., to enable them to maintain the records. It is the need of the hour that Public Authorities meet the standards set by the RTI in regard to having competent PIO personnel, efficient record keeping system and decent infrastructure to facilitate in proving the information sought within the stipulated time.

2. Untrained PIO Personnel –

It is a basic requirement of being a PIO to have a basic amount of training regarding the RTI Act so they can effectively discharge their duties. But according to the survey conducted by the RTI, it was underwhelming to see that only 55% of the PIOs trained were given the RTI training. When discussions were held with the PIOs inquiring as to why there was such poor training or understanding of the RTI Act, they stated that recurring personnel transfers adds on to the problem and this only compounds the pressure on these training institutes endowed to provide RTI training.

There is no refresher training on new aspects being added on the RTI. The implementation of RTI is still in due process in the first place, and the basic acts covering the basis of the landmark statues passed by SIC itself are not informed to the PIOs. Hence, the expectation for the training of refresher knowledge seems to be a distant reality for us. We must also consider that there is a need to approach an external third party to provide training. In the survey conducted, it was already communicated that there is a resource constraint on part of RTI and they do require external help to conduct training. More than 95% of the training institutes explicitly stated and conveyed that they would require the support of an external agency to conduct RTI training.

3. Poor Record Management System –

Section 4 (1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005 states the importance of deficient and proper record management. But we observe the opposite application in the RTI. Information Provider survey specified how orderly record management plays a crucial role in the speedy disposal of RTI cases, yet roughly 38% of PIOs affirmed that it is due to record management that there is delay in the processing of the requests. Furthermore, 79% stated that delays are also caused due to the time gone in the collection of the information from its many offices. The RTI Act's criteria are not being met by the Centre’s or most States' present record management rules. Additionally, none of the departments possess an electronic document management system in place that would serve as the basis for the information. The vast majority of PIOs polled do not even keep an electronic list of RTI applications.

4. Lack of Infrastructure –

Where at the district level it would be quite easy to gain access to photocopiers or scanners, these facilities are difficult to get information at the Panchayat level. PIOs do not possess the required infrastructure to handle such a mass number of requests, and this poses a challenge in the efficient implementation of RTI. In order to fulfil RTI requests, it is essential to provide the most basic equipment and infrastructure at each Public Authority such as connectivity, photocopy machines, computers etc.

There is also minimal usage of IT in servicing RTI applications by the Public Authorities. A few departments have independently constructed isolated IT solutions; however, the functionality of these systems is limited to monitoring the status of RTI applications. Software application by Kandivali Municipal Corporation and Kamrup Metro District has been developed to mentor the internal status of RTI cases. Despite this, there remains no medium of standard application at the State level.

5. Demotivated PIOs –

PIOs do not just lack resources, but also lack incentive to take advantage of the RTI Act. PIOs stated that there were no incentives for accepting the role of a PIO during the RTI workshops held in the states that were polled; nonetheless, sanctions were applied for non-compliance. Furthermore, noted was the significant variation in the PIOs' levels of seniority. For instance, the Andhra Pradesh Department of School Education has employed PIOs at the level of schoolteachers. In the information provider survey, 89% of PIOs said that no additional personnel had been tasked with RTI-related tasks.

Remedies:

Let us consider the remedies to be applied in regard to our issues faced at hand as mentioned above. It is the need of the hour to provide concrete remedies so as to not render the Right to Information Act obsolete. It is imperative to solve the fundamental problems that hinder the RTI Act's effectiveness given the significance of public access to information.

1. In regard to the first point on failure to provide ready reprise within stipulated timeframe of 30 days, this problem can be countered in a twofold manner. Firstly, we can start by the strict enactment of Section 4 (1)(a) of the RTI Act. This would ensure orderly record management as well would under the section provide for the needed basic infrastructure. Secondly, we can pursue an open information disclosure system so that the information sought for by the petitioners can be acquired on the websites of the relevant government agencies, which means that these government agencies must disclose all information regarding their operations and implementation. This will also lessen the department's workload of providing information, which consumes a significant amount of its precious time.
2. We must employ an external third-party training company in order to train the PIOs regarding the basic landmark cases as well as be given refresher training as and when new dimensions are added on to the Act. This can be employed by making use of the Make in India scheme, providing incentives for entrepreneurs in our country to device a system of training or come up with a government affiliated agency to conduct the required training and knowledge transfer.
3. Because of poor record system by the public authorities, aside from the basic get go of enacting stricter enforcement of Section 4, which has already been mentioned above. We can also employ a system to reduce the duplication of similar applications by filtering them out with certain key words. This would greatly reduce the burden on the review authorities and even speed up the response time.
4. Considering the Right to Information Act was made in conjunction to Article 21 of the Constitution where it has been assessed on the same grounds as the Right to Privacy, it is crucial to pressurize the governments of each state to allocate a certain amount of funds towards providing the basic infrastructure. The state government must set up fixed assets such as photocopier machine or computer at the district level and take up its maintenance now and then.
5. We must understand that a full enforcement of the Act would only be possible if the PIOs themselves want to contribute to making this Act work. Access to the PIO can be made easier by field-level PIO engagements.
6. Finally, the only way we can see any concrete change is if we speak up about the change we want to see, and that begins by spreading awareness on the Act itself. This can be accomplished by launching awareness campaigns in rural areas using print, radio, and television media in a variety of regional languages, and incorporating a chapter on the RTI Act, 2005 into the curriculum of schools and colleges. Enough funding should also be provided to Central and State Information Commissions to promote knowledge of the RTI Act of 2005.

Conclusion:

We have observed from the above statements the reasons as to why the implementation of the RTI has been ineffective and how it may be dying a slow death. However, we further explore that it is due to minute in discrepancy by the government and its operations that these drawbacks occur. It is highly necessitated that for us to implement an Act which was made for our own benefit as citizens, as consumers, as people, that we must not let this Act fail us. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is the essence of democracy. The state must begin to recognise the value of an informed public and the part it plays in the growth of the nation in order to realise the third paradigm. In this situation, it is necessary to address the underlying problems of the Right to Information Act in order for it to meet the needs of information societies.

AUTHORS’ DETAILS:

Name of the Author: Johanna Koshy

Name of the Institution: Symbiosis Law School, Pune

 N.B.: The author certifies that the work is original. Views expressed are personal.

[1] 1975 AIR 865

[2] 2002 AIR 2112; 2002 (3) SCR 294

[3]https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/how-rti-is-dying-a-slow-death-in-india/story-sTpdC63K7s42vxgV1bxwTI.html

[4] https://theprint.in/opinion/in-15-years-rti-has-gone-from-indian-citizens-most-powerful-tool-to-an-act-on-life-support/447507/

[5] As per section 2(j)(1), “inspection of work, documents and records” is a means to provide information under Right to Information Act.