The Right to Information was deemed to be a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution in a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1976 (Raj Narain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh). The reasoning behind making RTI a fundamental right was to give citizens the right to know about the workings of the Government and public authorities while ensuring transparency in their work. The Right to Information Act, enacted in 2005, is one of the strongest mechanisms we have to keep corruption in check and hold public authorities accountable. The objective of the Act is to “empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in the real sense.”
However, in light of recent events, there has been a growing concern regarding the erosion of this valued right. The most pertinent recent example of the weakening of the RTI mechanism is SEBI- an organisation whose main function is protecting the interests of investors in securities- refusing to disclose information regarding cases where its chairperson Madhabi Buch recused herself from cases due to conflicts of interest. The request which was placed by transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd) was denied on the grounds of “personal information” and “safety”. It was said that collating the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, which under section 7(9) of the Act Stands as a valid ground for rejection.
The reasoning behind the decision may seem to hold some weight, however, that is until you take into account the gravity of the accusations placed upon the SEBI chairperson by Hindenburg Research, which alleged that the lack of scrutiny that the Adani Group was placed under was due to the very chairperson of SEBI being corrupt and possessing stakes in offshore entities linked to the Group that fell directly under her purview.
You may ask, “How does this make the refusal of the information on the grounds of personal information any less valid?”. Well, It weakens the grounds of refusal since it could be argued that the information is of public interest, and the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of SEBI can still disclose personal information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm caused to the individuals sought to be protected(RTI Section 8(2)). Public authorities often exploit the same few sections of the RTI Act in order to avoid accountability and prevent any semblance of transparency.
The RTI Act has been weakened gradually through various actions by the Dispensation. In 2013, the Central Information Commission(CIC) passed an order to bring six national political parties including the INC and BJP under the ambit of the RTI Act. However, even 11 years later, all these political parties have yet to appoint an information officer, whose role is to manage the flow of information disclosed to the public. Many transparency activists allege that crores in public funds are spent on elections, and keeping political parties under the ambit of the RTI Act will ensure reduction in the usage of black money in political funding.
The most debilitating strike at the RTI Act’s functioning has undoubtedly been the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (2023), which is an act that seeks to protect the privacy of individuals and their digital data. Concerns have been raised regarding how this severely reduces the efficacy of the RTI act and becomes a hindrance to its functioning by providing impunity to government officials under the guise of protecting their privacy. Lt General K J Singh (RTI activist) aptly summarises the situation “DPDP seeks to drastically amend Section 8 (1) (j) and exclude all personal information, giving officials immunity, even when information impacts public interest. Ironically, the taxpayer is paying for all this inefficiency.”
Using the recent revelation concerning the electoral bond scheme, transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj paints a picture of the detrimental impact this bill could have had if it were operational earlier: “Even if the Supreme Court were to strike down the aspect of anonymity in electoral bonds, it will not be easy to access names of donors. They’re likely to say that this is personal information and disclosing it through RTI will violate the DPDP Act .”
The RTI Act and its ability to provide transparent governance and truly create accountability, along with encouraging a participative democracy consisting of proactive citizens is remarkable. The erosion of this singular Act can lead to widespread incompetence and corruption.
Across public authorities, these dire consequences are the reason why transparency activists dedicate their efforts toward protecting this very act.
References: