1)  RIGHT TO INFORMATION/KNOW

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India

Section 33B of the Representation of people Act, 1951 was challenged which said “an electoral candidate is not bound to disclose any information not required under the law.

The court held that under Art.19(1)(a), voting is also a form of expression and availability of basic information about the candidates enables voters to make an informed decision and also paves the way for public debates on merits and demerits of the candidates.

For having unpolluted healthy democracy, citizens-voters should be well-informed.

 “Without having exercise of right to know the relevant antecedents of the candidates, it will not be possible to have free & fair elections”.

Disclosure of asset declarations is “the necessity of the day because of statutory provisions of controlling wide spread of corrupt practices”.

That provision was strucked down as unconstitutional because violative of Art.19(1)(a).

Dinesh Trivedi, M. P. v Union of India

Court said,

 “In modern democracies it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the government which, having been elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies of governance and at their welfare.”

 “Democracy expects openness with concomitant of a free society and the sunlight is

 the best infectant”.

Bennnett Coleman v. Union of India

Petitioners challenged the restrictions imposed on the import of newspapers, regulation of sale, acquisition and use of newspapers under government orders of 1955 and 1962 and also the direct regulation on the size and circulation on newspapers under policy of 1972-73.

The court strucked down that policy of the government at its quantitative restrictions were not justified by a shortage of newsprint (the other newsprint order and import control orders were held constitutional as they were being qualitative restrictions).

Further held “the right of the public to hear and to be informed is also within the concept of freedom of speech and expression and spreading of information is the main function of the newspapers”. News paper is the most potent means for educating the people. So, restricting such is unconstitutional.

2)  DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain

S.23 of Indian Evidence Act – Prevents anyone from giving evidence in court that was derived from certain unpublished official documents without first obtaining permission from the relevant government official.

A citizen sought disclosure from government officials of the blue-book relating to the rules and instructions for the protection of the Prime Minister while travelling. The petitioner claimed that the documents would reveal how the government had engaged in corrupt practices and violated limits on amount of money that may be used in election campaigns.

The court ruled that, a court may order government documents to be disclosed in court proceedings, even if the official permission has not been obtained as required by the Evidence Act, if the public interest served by disclosure clearly outweighs that of secrecy.

Citizens’ right to know arises from the right to freedom of expression. Also it is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions for reasons of public security.

Government has to disclose the documents, so long as disclosure did not endanger his (PM) security and public order. People have the right to know everything that is done by the public officials in their official capacity.

Rules of evidence that prevent disclosure of certain government documents in court proceedings may be overridden if the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in keeping documents secret.

S. P. Gupta v. Union of India

Court recognized that a democratic society cannot keep the activities of the government hidden from the public in order to avoid accountability and criticism. Right to know of the citizens is implicit under art. 19(1)(a). No democratic state survive without accountability, accountability comes when there is Information.

Principle behind S. 123 of the Evidence Act is Public interest.

Court identified a presumption of disclosure: “ Disclosure of information in regard to functioning of government must be the rule, secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands – bearing in mind that, disclosure also serves an important aspect of public interest.

3)  RIGHT TO ACQUIRE AND DISSEMINATE INFORMATION

Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broad casting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal

The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and to disseminate it.

The freedom of speech and expression is a basic to and indivisible from a democratic polity. It encompasses freedom of press. It includes right to impart and receive information.

The right to freedom of speech and expression does not permit a monopoly on anyone whether be government or be an individual.

For ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues.

 “A successful democracy posits an aware citizenry”. Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies are essential to enable the citizens to arise at informed judgment on all issued touching them.

4)   DIRECTION ON VOTER’S RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms

The election commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under Art. 324 from each candidate seeking election to furnish the records regarding his past background, assets (his and of his dependents), criminal background, etc.

It was held that all these information is needed to make ‘informed citizenry’ and to make a democracy an effective participatory democracy.

Voter speaks/express by casting a vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is a must. Voters’ right to know the antecedents including the criminal past of the candidate contesting for the election is more fundamental and basic for the survival of democracy. This helps a voter to think before making his choice of electing law-breakers as law-makers.

5)  RESTRICTIONS ON INFORMATION PERTAINING TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administarative Officer

Definition of ‘Information’ under RTI Act shows that applicant can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the Public Authority under the law. He cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, order, etc have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions.

A judge speaks through his judgements passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order or judgement passed by a judge, the remedy available is to challenge the same by way of appeal or by review or any other legally permissible mode.

A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a decision.

6)  RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS NOT A ABSOLUTE RIGHT

State of Andra Pradesh v. Canara Bank

RTI is a part of right to freedom of speech and expression. It recognizes that both rights (RTI and Right to Privacy) are important and requires protection and in case of conflict between the two rights, the test of overriding public interest is applied to decide whether information should be withheld or disclosed.

7)  RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

Privacy can’t be upheld everytime where public interest is better served by disclosing such information. But only such information must be disclosed as regarding to the public interest and need not to disturb the privacy of others.

8)  INFORMATION RELATING TO THE JUDGES (APPOINTMENTS, etc)

Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

• Application was made regarding the disclosure of Assets (as was there under Full Court Resolution that every judge declares) of the CJI from CPIO, Supreme Court of India.

Information pertaining to submitted documents (declarations) and their contents constitutes ‘Information’ under the Act.

• Again it was argued on the ground that it was a matter of privacy and disclosing it to the third party can be exempted.
• Held that if information concerns a third party who is a public officer, the degree of their privacy protection was lower and thus a larger public interest in disclosure wad more likely to override the interest in privacy. Once the requester of information demonstrated “the larger public interest”, the next step for a relevant authority was to consult a third party (public servant) and eventually to balance the interest in disclosure against the privacy concerns.
• The court ordered to release information about the declarations made by the judge to the Supreme Court, but not their content which the requester did not ask for.
• Independence of judiciary and accountability go hand in hand and independence of judiciary can’t be ensured only by denying information. The office of CJI will come under the ambit of RTI Act. Principal consideration should the public interest and judges are not above the law.
• No doubt, this extremely landmark and laudable judgment has sent a very loud and

 clear message that even CJI’s office is not exempted from the purview of RTI Act. This will clearly serve to increase transparency in the functioning of Judiciary.