Judging the Right to Information: Analysis of Some Landmark Decisions of Centre Information Commission

Dr. L.R.Verma1 Dr. Lalit Dadwal2

The Right to Information, Act 2005 is one of the most advanced Information legislations in the world. In India, after many deliberations over the years, the RTI Act came into force on October 12, 2005, thus opening up the governance processes of our country to the public. The Act is based on the principle that all government information is the property of people. It takes democracy to the grass root level and is also a step towards ensuring participatory governance in the country. Since its inception the Commission has given some landmark rulings on the right to information which finally opened the cudgels of secrecy of the public bodies. As a fearless watchdog, the CIC have vigorously upheld the values of a participatory democracy and fertilized many provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 with meaning and content. As on August 2011 total cumulative disposal by the Centre Information Commission was 78405 and closing balance was 20232 3. A total of 13,322 cases were disposed off by the Chief Information Commission during 2008 -09, almost double the cases resolved by it in the previous year. A total of 7,722 cases were disposed off by the CIC in 2007-08 as against 4,074 cases in2006-07 and 682 such cases in 2004-05.
4

Right to Information have substantially grown in numbers, complexion, and stature during last six years. There was an overwhelming response by the people, as the number of information seekers increased every year. This demonstrates the success of RTI Act in creating conditions for free flow of information and knowledge, as envisioned by the Parliament in passage of RTI Act. The role of CIC, as a regulator and educator, is critical in so far, as taking tough action against those bodies that violate the provisions of the Act and providing guidance to the Public Authorities for promotion of open government.
1 2

Director , H.P.University Regional Centre, Dharamshala-176215 Assistant Professor, Department of Laws, H.P. University Regional Centre, Dharamshala(lalitdadwal@gmail.com) 3 www.cic.org (Accessed on 9th December,2011) 4 Times of India , 8th July,2009.

In a path-breaking judgement, the Delhi High 5 court held that the office of the Chief Justice of India came within the ambit of the RTI Act and rejected the Supreme Courts appeal by saying judicial independence is not a judge's personal privilege but a responsibility cast upon him. In a 88-page verdict, a full bench headed by Chief Justice A.P. Shah said that judges of a Supreme Court should make pubic their assets as they are not "less accountable" than the judicial officers of the lower courts who are bound by service rules to declare assets. In the case of Satyapal v. CPIO, TCIL 6 , the Commission held that in terms of the definition given under S.2 (i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 a record includes a file, and in terms of Section 2 (j), the right to information includes access to a record therefore an applicant under right to information has the right to access a file, and file notings are an integral part of any file which cannot be exempt from disclosure. In Neeraj Kumar Singhal v. North West Railway, Jaipur7, the CIC held that in case of competitive examinations, the marks secured by the candidates are not to be kept secret, and should be furnished to the candidates. In another landmark decision 8the CIC has ruled that the income tax returns of political parties will come under the purview of the RTI Act. The move will, is hoped enable the public to get details on the funding source of political parties. In its very recent decision9 the Central Information Commission has directed the Reserve Bank of India to make public the names and other details of top 100 industrialists of the country who have defaulted on loans from public sector banks. The Commission also directed the central bank to post on its website complete information on all such industrialists as part of suo motu disclosure mandated under section four of the RTI Act before December 31 and asked it to update it every year. The Commission, through its decisions from time to time, has laid down principles for disclosure of various classes of information which were not considered fit for disclosure thus far. It is no exaggeration to say that this single piece of legislation has changed the realities of governance considerably.

5 6 7 8 9

Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v.S.C. Aggarwal LPA 501/2009 Decided on 12th January,2010. Appeal No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006, Dated 31st January,2006 Appeal No. 11/53/2006/ CIC, Dated 2nd May, 2006. Mr. Anu Meha C/o Association for Democratic Reforms, New Delhi v. C CIT/ CIT. (Nine Different appeals bearing different numbers decided on 29th April, 2008).

P P Kapoor vs.R.B.I CIC/SM/A/2011/001376/SG/15684 Decided on 15 th November, 2011