Pragmatic regime of right to information for citizens is the key to good governance in India, but it is not being implemented in its original spirit. Examine it in the light of decision of the Supreme Court of India in Anjali Bhardwaj vs. Union of India, February 2019.
- Core Legal Answer & Context: The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is widely regarded as a landmark legislation in India, designed to empower citizens, promote transparency and accountability in government functioning, and combat corruption. Its 'pragmatic regime' allows citizens to access information held by public authorities, thereby fostering informed public participation and strengthening democratic governance. The original spirit of the Act was to create a robust mechanism for proactive disclosure and timely access to information, making governance more open and responsive.
However, the statement correctly observes that the RTI Act is 'not being implemented in its original spirit.' Over the years, several challenges have emerged, including: delays in providing information, arbitrary rejections of requests, lack of proactive disclosure, attacks on RTI activists, and, critically, the weakening of the independence and effectiveness of Information Commissions (ICs) – the appellate bodies under the Act. These issues undermine the very purpose of the legislation.
- Relevant Statutes and Sections:
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
- Section 3: Confers the right to information on all citizens.
- Section 4: Mandates proactive disclosure of information by public authorities.
- Sections 12-18: Deal with the constitution, powers, and functions of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs), including the appointment of Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners.
- Important Landmark Cases:
- Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019) 18 SCC 246 (Supreme Court of India): This case critically examined the implementation of the RTI Act, particularly concerning the appointment and functioning of Information Commissioners. The Supreme Court observed that the vacancies in the CIC and SICs were not being filled in a timely manner, and the appointment process lacked transparency. The Court issued several significant directions:
- It mandated that the selection committee (comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister) must make recommendations for appointments based on merit and without government interference.
- It directed that the advertisements for vacancies must be widely published, and the selection process must be completed within a specified timeframe.
- It emphasized that the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners should be appointed from diverse fields, ensuring their independence and expertise.
- The judgment underscored the importance of the independence of these commissions for the effective functioning of the RTI regime.
- Clear Conclusion: The RTI Act, 2005, is a vital instrument for good governance, but its full potential is hampered by implementation deficiencies and challenges to the autonomy of Information Commissions. The Supreme Court's decision in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India served as a crucial judicial intervention, reaffirming the foundational principles of transparency and independence essential for the RTI regime. The judgment highlighted the need for robust, timely, and transparent appointments to Information Commissions to ensure the Act is implemented in its true spirit, thereby safeguarding citizens' right to information and promoting accountability in governance.