Right to Information & Good Governance

The RTI Act and its Objectives

The RTI Act, 2005, replaced the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, and provides a legal framework for citizens to request and obtain information from public authorities. Its core objectives include:

• Promoting transparency and accountability
• Empowering citizens to participate in governance
• Combating corruption and improving efficiency
• Holding public officials accountable for their actions

Supreme Court’s Observations in *Anjali Bhardwaj vs. Union of India*

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Anjali Bhardwaj* arose from a petition concerning the non-implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act, which mandates *suo motu* disclosure of information by public authorities. The Court made several crucial observations:

• Non-Compliance with Section 4: The Court noted widespread non-compliance with Section 4, with many public authorities failing to proactively disclose information as required.
• Deficient Implementation Rules: The rules framed by various states and Union Territories were found to be inadequate and often diluted the provisions of the Act.
• Lack of Effective Monitoring: The Court highlighted the absence of a robust mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the Act and ensuring compliance by public authorities.
• PIOs’ Role: The judgment emphasized the critical role of Public Information Officers (PIOs) in facilitating access to information and criticized instances of deliberate delays and obstruction.
• Need for Capacity Building: The Court stressed the need for capacity building of PIOs and other officials responsible for implementing the Act.

Reasons for Suboptimal Implementation

Several factors contribute to the suboptimal implementation of the RTI Act:

• Attitudinal Barriers: A reluctance to share information among public officials, stemming from a culture of secrecy and a fear of accountability.
• Lack of Awareness: Limited awareness of the Act among citizens, particularly in rural areas, hindering their ability to exercise their right to information.
• Inadequate Infrastructure: Insufficient infrastructure and resources allocated to RTI implementation, including a shortage of trained personnel.
• Delays and Obstruction: Deliberate delays in responding to applications, denial of information on flimsy grounds, and imposition of excessive fees.
• Weak Penalties: The penalties prescribed under the Act for non-compliance are often considered inadequate to deter violations.

Impact on Good Governance

The ineffective implementation of the RTI Act directly undermines good governance in India. Without access to information, citizens are unable to hold public authorities accountable, leading to:

• Increased corruption and inefficiency
• Erosion of public trust
• Reduced citizen participation in decision-making
• Weakened democratic institutions

Remedial Measures

To revitalize the RTI regime and ensure its effective implementation, the following measures are crucial:

• Strengthening Section 4 Compliance: Public authorities must proactively disclose information as mandated by Section 4, utilizing digital platforms for wider dissemination.
• Improving Implementation Rules: States and Union Territories should revise their implementation rules to align with the spirit of the Act.
• Establishing a Robust Monitoring Mechanism: An independent body should be established to monitor the implementation of the Act and ensure compliance.
• Capacity Building of PIOs: Regular training programs should be conducted for PIOs and other officials to enhance their understanding of the Act and their responsibilities.
• Enhancing Penalties: The penalties for non-compliance should be increased to serve as a deterrent.
• Promoting Awareness: Public awareness campaigns should be launched to educate citizens about their right to information and how to exercise it.