J&K RTI Movement Kupwara

for citizens" and replaces the erstwhile Freedom of Information Act, 2002. Jammu and Kashmir has its own act called Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009. Under the provisions of the Act, any citizen may request information from a "public authority" (a body of Government or "instrumentality of State") which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The Act also requires every public authority to computerise their records for wide dissemination and to pro-actively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally. This law was passed by Parliament on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005.[1] Information disclosure in India was restricted by the Official Secrets Act 1923 and various other special laws, which the new RTI Act relaxes. The Act has increased transparency and greater accountability in the functioning of the government and hence played a significant role in exposing and reducing corruption to some extent. It is claimed to promote a "citizen-centric approach to development" and to increase the efficiency of public welfare schemes run by the government. Historical Context[edit source | editbeta]
The earliest reference to right to information is in 1776, from Sweden, where a convention granting right to information to all its citizens was passed. [3] After the United Nations was formed, the U.N. passed a resolution in 1946 recognising right to information as a fundamental right. In 1960, UNESCO adopted a Declaration of Freedom of Information,[4] and Sweden became the first country in the world to enact a provision for access to government information. At least 56 countries in the world have enacted their own right to information in their statutes. Supreme Court judgements[edit source | editbeta]
The Supreme Court for the first time gave a ruling on Three Judges Cases that disclosure of information with respect to functioning of the government must be a rule rather than an exception.[3]
In Mr. Khulwal v. Jaipur Municipal Corporation case, the Supreme Court gave directives that right to information comes under Article 19 of Indian Constitution. Right to Information movement[edit source | editbeta]
In early 1990s Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathana (MKSS) began a movement to bring transparency to village financial accounts. Initially, MKSS lobbied government to obtain information such as master rolls (employment and payment records) and bills and vouchers relating to purchase and transportation of materials. This information was then crosschecked at Jan Sunwais (public hearings) against actual testimonies of workers. The public hearings were incredibly successful in drawing attention to corruption and exposing leakages in the system.[5]
Success of MKSS became a source of inspiration for activists in other parts of India and led to a broader discourse on the right to information in India. In 1993, a first draft RTI law was proposed by the Consumer Education and Research Council, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (CERC). In 1996, the Press Council of India headed by Justice P B Sawant presented a draft model law on the right to information to the Government of India. The draft model law was later updated and renamed the PCI-NIRD Freedom of Information Bill 1997. MKSS's advocacy gave rise to the National Campaign on People's Right to Information (NCPRI), which was formed to advocate for the right to information at the national level. In 1997 efforts to legislate for the right to information, at both the State and National level, quickened. A working group under the chairmanship of Mr. H D Shourie (the Shourie Committee) was set up by the Central Government and given the mandate to prepare draft legislation on freedom of information. The Shourie Committee's Report and draft law were published in 1997. The Shourie Committee draft law was passed through two successive governments, but was never introduced in Parliament. In 1999 NDA minister Mr Ram Jethmalani, then Union Minister for Urban Development, issued an administrative order enabling citizens to inspect and receive photocopies of files. Shourie Committee's draft law was reworked into the Freedom of Information Bill 2000. It was passed in December 2002 and received Presidential assent in January 2003, as the Freedom of Information Act 2002.[6]
In 1998, during the Rajasthan State elections the Congress Party promised in its election manifesto to enact a law on right to information if it came to power. Following their election, the Congress Party appointed a committee of bureaucrats to draft a bill on the right to information. As the Committee was comprised only of bureaucrats, civil society organisations raised strong objections. As a result, members of MKSS and National Campaign for Peoples Right to Information (NCPRI) were invited to assist in drafting the bill. MKSS and NCPRI conducted a host of consultations in each divisional headquarters of the State. Drawing on the input from these consultations, a draft civil society Right to Information Bill was prepared, which was then submitted to the Committee. The Committee drew on the citizens draft Bill for its recommendations, but refused to accept the Bill in toto. The Rajasthan Right to Information Act 2000 was eventually passed on 11 May 2000. The Act in its final form retained many of the suggestions of the RTI movement, but diluted others.[7]
In the early 2000s Anna Hazare led a movement in Maharashtra state which forced the state government to pass a stronger Maharashtra Right to Information Act. This Act was later considered as the base document for the Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI), enacted by the Union Government. It also ensured that the President of India assented to this new Act.[8] Under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, the Congress party won the 2004 national elections and formed the central government. Aruna Roy was inducted into the National Advisory Committee (NAC), an extremely powerful but extra-constitutional quasi-governmental body headed by Sonia Gandhi which effectively supervises the working of the common minimum program of UPA II .[9] Aruna Roy submitted a paper recommending amendments to the 2002 Freedom of Information Act to the NAC which in turn sent by it to the Prime Minister's Office. The Right to Information Bill 2004 (RTI Bill 2004) was tabled on 23 December during the winter session of the Lok Sabha. The RTI Bill 2004 was based largely on recommendations submitted to the Government by the NAC which was passed by the Indian parliament in 2005.[6] On 20 July 2006 the Union Cabinet amended the Right to Information Act 2005 to exclude the file noting by the government officials from its purview. Hazare began his fast unto death on 9 August 2006 in Alandi against the proposed amendment. He ended his fast on 19 August 2006, after the government agreed to change its earlier decision.[10]
Freedom of Information Act 2002[edit source | editbeta]
The establishment of a national-level law, however, proved to be a difficult task. Given the experience of state governments in passing practicable legislation, the Central Government appointed a working group under H. Shourie and assigned it the task of drafting legislation. The Shourie draft, in an extremely diluted form, was the basis for the Freedom of Information Bill, 2000 which eventually became law under the Freedom of Information Act, 2002.[citation needed] In late 2002 the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) asked for scrutiny of the proposed bill by the Supreme Court to determine whether the bill gave citizens sufficient power to find out about governance. The government had been reluctant to recognise that the people had a right to know, and after the CPIL filing it rushed through the bill without correcting known defects.[11] This Act was severely criticised for permitting too many exemptions, not only under the standard grounds of national security and sovereignty, but also for requests that would involve "disproportionate diversion of the resources of a public authority". There was no upper limit on the charges that could be levied. There were no penalties for not complying with a request for information. This Act, consequently, never came into effective force.. State level RTI Acts[edit source | editbeta]
The state level RTI Acts were first successfully enacted by the state governments of — Karnataka (2000), Goa (1997), Rajasthan (2000), Tamil Nadu (1997), Delhi (2001), Maharashtra (2002), Assam (2002), Madhya Pradesh (2003), and Jammu and Kashmir (2004). Scope[edit source | editbeta]

The Act covers the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, where J&K Right to Information Act is in force. It is applicable to all constitutional authorities, including the executive, legislature and judiciary; any institution or body established or constituted by an act of Parliament or a state legislature. It is also defined in the Act that bodies or authorities established or constituted by order or notification of appropriate government including bodies "owned, controlled or substantially financed" by government, or non-Government organisations "substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds" provided by the government are also covered in the Act. Private bodies[edit source | editbeta]
Private bodies are not within the Act's ambit directly. In a landmark decision of Sarbajit Roy versus DERC,[12] the Central Information Commission also reaffirmed that privatised public utility companies continue to be within the RTI Act- their privatisation not withstanding. Political parties[edit source | editbeta]
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that the political parties are public authorities and answerable to citizens under RTI Act. The CIC, a quasi-judicial body, has said that six national parties:- Congress, BJP, NCP, CPI(M), CPI and BSP have been substantially funded indirectly by the central government and they have the character of public authority under the RTI Act as they perform public functions .[13][14]However, the political parties opposed this ruling[15]. On 1st August 2013, the Union Cabinet approved draft amendments to the RTI Act that would nullify an order of the CIC bringing the six national political parties under the orbit of the Act[16]. On 12 August, 2013, the Congress Party tabled RTI Amendment Bill 2013 in Lok Sabha to keep political parties out of RTI ambit.[17]
Process[edit source | editbeta]

Under the Act, all authorities covered must appoint their Public Information Officer (PIO). Any person may submit a request to the PIO for information in writing. It is the PIO's obligation to provide information to citizens of India who request information under the Act. If the request pertains to another public authority (in whole or part), it is the PIO's responsibility to transfer/forward the concerned portions of the request to a PIO of the other within 5 working days. In addition, every public authority is required to designate Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) to receive RTI requests and appeals for forwarding to the PIOs of their public authority. The applicant is not required to disclose any information or reasons other than his name and contact particulars to seek the information. The Central Information Commission (CIC) acts upon complaints from those individuals who have not been able to submit information requests to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer due to either the officer not having been appointed, or because the respective Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer refused to receive the application for information. The Act specifies time limits for replying to the request. If the request has been made to the PIO, the reply is to be given within 30 days of receipt. If the request has been made to an APIO, the reply is to be given within 35 days of receipt. If the PIO transfers the request to another public authority (better concerned with the information requested), the time allowed to reply is 30 days but computed from the day after it is received by the PIO of the transferee authority. Information concerning corruption and Human Rights violations by scheduled Security agencies (those listed in the Second Schedule to the Act) is to be provided within 45 days but with the prior approval of the Central Information Commission. However, if life or liberty of any person is involved, the PIO is expected to reply within 48 hours. Since the information is to be paid for, the reply of the PIO is necessarily limited to either denying the request (in whole or part) and/or providing a computation of "further fees". The time between the reply of the PIO and the time taken to deposit the further fees for information is excluded from the time allowed. If information is not provided within this period, it is treated as deemed refusal. Refusal with or without reasons may be ground for appeal or complaint. Further, information not provided in the times prescribed is to be provided free of charge. Exclusions[edit source | editbeta]

Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified in the Second Schedule like IB,Directorate General of Income tax(Investigation), RAW, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau, Special Branch (CID), Andaman and Nicobar, The Crime Branch-CID-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police. Agencies specified by the State Governments through a Notification will also be excluded. The exclusion, however, is not absolute and these organizations have an obligation to provide information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Further, information relating to allegations of human rights violation could be given but only with the approval of the Central or State Information Commission. Information Exclusions[edit source | editbeta]
The following is exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the Act:-
Information, disclosure of which 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 offense;
Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
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;
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;
Information received in confidence from foreign Government;
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;
Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers;
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 the privacy of the individual (but it is also provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied by this exemption);
Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. However, this does not apply to disclosure of "trade or commercial secrets protected by law ".