Information is an inalienable natural right of every human being [1]. Human rights can only be realized in a democratic society where people are equipped with information and knowledge, are able to scrutinize the functioning of their government and are capable of meaningful participation in community governance [2]. For this purpose, the law regarding right to information is an excellent weapon, since it provides citizen with the right and means to access information from the government, empowering citizens by giving them a tool with which to hold the government responsible, engage in governance and exercise their rights [3]. 

Any country may grow as a robust society of informed citizens by making maximum exposure of information in the public domain a rule and secrecy an exception. The value of the ‘right to information as a basic fundamental right’ as a supplement to the notion of checks and balances, promoting transparency and openness in the governance process by instilling a feeling of greater accountability, cannot be overstated [4]. “The administration of states’ good governance approach should ideally be based on the principles of transparency and accountability. It is critical that choices are made in an open and transparent manner, with decision-makers held accountable. This type of accountability for effective administration goes beyond electoral accountability” [5]. Participants in a democratic system have the right to know what, how and why the government is making or changes decisions, as well as how the government functions [6]. Right to information is an excellent democratic weapon for the citizens to participate in every political decision that affects their quality of life.

In order to aspire for society which is relatively free from the acts of corruption, it is important to first empower citizens [7]. From the standpoint of civil society engagement, any anti-corruption struggle must begin with citizen empowerment, which may be achieved through the strengthening of the right to information [8]. Right of information is arguably most essential as a foundation for democracy. Public information is collected for the advantage of the general public, not for the purpose of officials or politicians. Everyone should have access to such information unless there are compelling grounds to withhold it. Right of information, furthermore, is a critical component of transparent and accountable governance. It is critical for citizens to be able to observe what is going on in government and to expose corruption and incompetence [9]. However, transparency requires citizens to be educated and alert and a good legislation is only the first step.

The government's procedures must be redesigned for converting documents and data into understandable and relevant information. After which, civil society including the media should learn how to utilize information as a strong weapon for enforcing accountability and combating mismanagement of government resources [10].

RTI and Its Impact on Corruprtion: The Indian Context

In the context of India, the Right to Information Act (RTI Act, 2005) is a turning point in the history of independent India. It developed a solid framework for putting the fundamental human right to information into action [11]. It is a momentous step forward in citizen empowerment [12]. The right to information is a basic right that every Indian citizen has to know what is going on in their government. It is a significant piece of legislation that provides every citizen of India the right and freedom to get information about their government’s activities, both at the national and state levels. The Act mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information [13]. The Indian Parliament approved this legislation on June 15, 2005 and it came into effect on October 12, 2005 [14]. The main aims of the RTI Act is to provide clarity of information to the citizens of India, to contain corruption and to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority [15].

Part III of India's Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights, is the constitutional underpinning for the right to information. Despite the fact that the constitution does not contain a particular right to information, the court has imaginatively construed and read the right to information into the Constitution [16], more specifically while interpreting the right to freedom of speech and expression contained in Article 19(1)(a) [17]. As per this Act, citizens have access to any information held by the government, subject to certain minimal exceptions. The Act is built on the principles of maximum disclosure and minimal secrecy [18]. Furthermore, the Act made it mandatory to provide information to the public suo moto at regular intervals [19]. It had a significant impact on how government officials worked [20]. This Act has a beneficial impact on the country's growth and development and it has become a tool for combating the threat of corruption, which is at the root of all problems in any democratic government [21].

Corruption has been determined as one of the greatest challenges in the progress and development of developing countries like India [22]. As aptly noted by M.M. Ansari, the former information Commissioner, that “corruption perpetuates poverty and harms the poor. It creates and environment of distrust between the people and the government, which impinge on the development and jeopardize democratic governance [23].” The practice of corruption has become rampant and systematic in the entire India [24]. The funds meant for development get mismanaged, misappropriated and are looted by corrupt public officials for their personal benefits [25]. The right to information is the first step in combating governmental corruption, as the availability of information about government decisions that impact people's lives would empower Indian citizens [26]. However, information by itself is not power. But information is certainly a vital first step in the exercise of economic and political power. It is self-evident that an informed citizen is better equipped to keep essential monitoring on governance instruments and hold the government more responsible to the governed. The Act is a significant step in informing citizens on the activities of the government. 

Harshh Mander and Abha Joshi have noted the importance of the right to information in the fight against corruption [27]:

“The right to information is expected to improve the quality of decision making by public authorities, in both policy and administrative matters, by removing unnecessary secrecy surrounding the decision-making process.... The cumulative impact on control of corruption and the arbitrary exercise of power, of the availability of such information to the citizen, would be momentous.”

Social activist and former bureaucrat Ms. Aruna Roy described India’s RTI Act as “the most fundamental law this country has seen as it can be used from the local panchayat (a unit of local government) to parliament, from a nondescript village to posh Delhi and from ration shops to the 2G scam [28]”. 

The Act provides for establishment of Central Information Commission (CIC) at the center and State Information Commission at the state level, respectively. This institutional measure ensures that the independence to enforce the right to information is maintained. The primary role of the information commissions is to receive and examine citizen complaints about RTI applications. To resolve RTI issues, these Commissions have the authority of a Civil Court [29]. Under the RTI Act, the appellate body is the Information Commission, which is tasked with rendering objective judgement on disputes over access to information between citizens and the government [30]. They perform the critical function of an oversight authority, which is intended to effect a change in the mindset of the bureaucracy by its directives and decisions. Furthermore, the Act provides for the formation of the Public Information Officers (PIO) across the country (in every government organization), who get adequate training to deal with RTI applications from individuals and to give reasonable assistance to them [31]. 

In addition to establishing a system for properly dispensing with the information, the Act employs a ‘perform or perish’ attitude. When a department receives an RTI request, it is the PIO's obligation to provide the information to the applicant within 30 days. Failure to do so may result in a monetary fine being levied on the PIO. The longer a PIO makes an application wait, the greater the penalty imposed [32].

RTI laws are largely utilized by journalists and the media, however in India, RTI Act has a wide range of users. According to a 2009 survey, almost two million RTI requests were submitted across the country in the first three years of the Act. RTI is being utilized to remedy individual grievances, access rights like as ration cards and pensions, probe government policies and choices and expose corruption and misuse of government resources, according to case studies and media reports [33]. 

Civil society groups have played a significant role in promoting public awareness of the Right to Information Act and supporting individuals in submitting requests for information. For example, Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Movement (JKRTIM), a Jammu and Kashmir based NGO, have been helping local communities in rural areas including tribal population with RTI applications and by promoting good governance and transparency by raising awareness about the RTI Act. JKRTIM has successfully advocated for changes in the quality of public services such as water, sanitation, the public distribution system and even the performance of local elected representatives, using RTI [34]. Aside from such efforts, the RTI Act is increasingly being utilized to combat high-profile corruption [35].

Regarding success of the RTI Act, a three-year empirical research performed in 20 states concluded that the Act “reduces corruption in an average state by 18.5 percent points.” It was determined that RTI had a negative influence on corruption and had a statistically significant impact on reducing corruption. It also discovered that the Act “explains roughly 62 percent of the real reduction in corruption in Bihar from 2005 to 2008,” despite the fact that Bihar is regarded as one of the most corrupt states in the country [36]. The study in its conclusion emphasizes in following words:

“Legislation such as the RTI Act in India is also important in curbing corruption. On the one hand it empowers citizens’ and breaks the information monopoly of public officials. Therefore, it prevents corrupt public officials from misusing information to advance their own interest. On the other hand, it provides the government with more power and public support for conducting top-down audit of corrupt departments [37].”

The study finally concluded that the legislation makes significant contribution in controlling corruption, enhancing the quality of public goods and services, empowering citizens and by breaking the informational monopoly of public officials.

Similarly, an experiment conducted by two Yale University Ph.D. students, found that India’s RTI Act can be as effective against the bribery in helping the poor access their entitlements. The study found “while the group that paid a bribe was the most successful, those that filed RTIs had their applications processed nearly as fast [38]”.

Right to Information and its Impact: A Critical Analysis

Notwithstanding the success stories of the RTI Act as mentioned above, under the command of present regime, at the Centre and in several States, RTI Act seem to have lost its effectiveness [39]. The Central Information Commission reported that from April 1, 2018 till March 31, 2019, a total of 1.37 million requests were made, of which 64,344 were rejected. It was also shown that while in 68,900 cases penalties should have been imposed (on government agencies for non-compliance), only 3% drew penalties [40]. This non-imposition of penalties in desired situations sends a message to public officials that breaking the law will not result in serious consequences. In the long term, the Act's ineffectiveness will undermine its efficacy.

Moreover, according to a Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative research, the overall number of RTI requests filed with various central government departments increased by 83% between 2012-13 and 2018-19, rising from 8.86 lakh to 16.30 lakh. However, the number of CPIOs assigned to manage them increased by just approximately 13%, from 21,204 to 24,048. More importantly, there was a significant decrease in obligatory data reporting to the CIC by ministries and departments [41]. 

Additionally, the Commissions, owing to either pendency or vacancy, are not adhering to time limits. The Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and the Centre for Equity Studies (CES) published a report which revealed that more than 2.2 lakh cases are pending at the Central and State Information Commissions [42]. 

Also, there is also the problem of threats and acts of violence directed towards RTI activists. At least 86 persons who filed RTI applications have been killed in the previous 15 years, while 175 others have been assaulted. At least seven applicants committed suicide, while 184 applicants claimed to have been harassed [43]. 

Venkatesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative observed:

“In 2017, there are more than 375 recorded instances of attacks on citizens who sought information to expose corruption and wrongdoing in various public authorities. Of these, 56 are murders, at least 157 are cases of physical assault and more than 160 are cases of harassment and threats, some of which have resulted in death by suicide …. By legally permitting withdrawal of appeals, vested interests will feel emboldened to pressure RTI users to withdraw their appeals before the CIC. If this proposed rule becomes law at the Centre, many States will make similar amendments, thereby unwittingly jeopardizing the life and safety of RTI users” [44].

Not of this, the present dispensation has come up with several measures which were criticized as attempts to dilute RTI [45]. There has been attempts to modify RTI Act in the Parliament, in the form of The RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which came under severe criticism [46]. The amendments have been passed by Parliament on July 25, 2019 which conferred power to the central government to set service conditions such as salary, allowances and tenure of office of the information commissioners [47]. The government claimed that these amendments were only trying to regularize the service conditions, critics thought the effort was to extend government control over these supposedly independent Commissioners [48]. Besides, the manner through which this amendment has been carried is also vehemently disapproved [49].

Adding to it is the non-appointment of Information Commissioners; an increasing propensity to refuse to provide information; an expanding backlog of second appeals; and the Information Commission’s lax approach, particularly, during the COVID-19 epidemic. Approximately 40,000-second appeals and complaints are pending at the Central Information Commission and around two lakhs on the State Information Commissions [50]. According to the ‘Report Card’ released by the SNS and CES, it took an average of more than a year for most SICs to dispose of complaints/appeals [51].

More recently, RTI applications were routinely rejected by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) after demonetization on the spurious grounds that disclosing the information would “prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the state, or lead to incitement of an offence” – all mentioned in Section 8 (exemption clause) of the RTI Act. When the CIC ordered the RBI to furnish a list of willful loan defaulters, the RBI moved to court and obtained a stay of execution. However, finally, the RBI produced the list in response to the Supreme Court's directive [52]. 

Even more recently, the government has steadfastly refused applications seeking information regarding the contentious PM CARES Fund, which was established to mobilize financial help from citizens to combat the Covid-19 epidemic [53].

All of these elements have had a significant impact on the effectiveness of this Act [54].

The ‘right to information’ is a basic fundamental right that underpins the core of real democracy and effective governance. In the context of India, the RTI Act, as elaborated, has played a significant role in the empowerment of the common masses to remedy - individual grievances, access rights like as ration cards and pensions, probe government policies and choices and most importantly, expose corruption and misuse of state resources in the public offices. In spite of very many success stories of RTI Act, however, we have recently witnessed some deliberate and coordinated efforts on the part of the central establishment to dilute the RTI Act. This has undoubtedly weakened the information regime (won after enormous effort by some of the most diligent individuals, including institutions and activists) and, as a result, has had a detrimental impact on one of the most basic fundamental rights - the right to information.

1. Debashish Sankhari, Right to Information as a Human Right and Developments in India. Presentation at Sarai, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, at p.7. Available at: https://bit.ly/3xRMZNp (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

2. Ibid.

3. Krishna Hari Baskota, Right to Information: A Tool to Strengthen Democracy, The Himalayan, 03 Jan, 2018. Available at: https://bit.ly/3hUyJNs (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

4. Mushin Ahmad Malik, Right to Information Act in Jammu And Kashmir: A Magnificent Tool for Good Governance and Combating Corruption, IJRAR August 2018, Volume 5, Issue 3, at p.1. Available at: https://www.ijrar.org/viewfull.php?&p_id=IJRAR1903295 (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

5. C. Raj Kumar, Corruption and Human Rights-Promoting Transparency in Governance and the Fundamental Right to Corruption-Free Service in India, 17 COLUM. J. ASIAN L. (2003), at p. 60.

6. Lotte E. Feinberg, Open Government and Freedom of Information: Fishbowl Accountability? In Handbook of Public Law and Administration (Philip J. Cooper & Chester A. Newland eds., 1997), at p. 376.

7. Analysis, RTI empowers the citizen, but threats can make Act opaque, Hindustan Times, 29 Oct. 2015. Available at: https://bit.ly/3hy5C3t (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

8. See, supra note 3.

9. Toby Mendel, Freedom of Information as an Internationally Protected Human Right, at p.1. Available at: https://bit.ly/3qwTB0Y (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

10. Dr. Sweety Phogat, Right to Information A Tool for Good Governance, International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), 2018 at p. 590. Available at: https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1705092.pdf (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

11. See generally, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India. 2003 (001) SCW 2353 SC. See also, Special Correspondent, RTI Is Fundamental Human Right, The Hindu, October 09, 2015. Available at: https://bit.ly/3k5LLdI (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

12. Right to Information Act, 2005, National Informatics Centre. Available at: https://www.nic.in/rti/ (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

13. See Right to Information, A Citizens Gateway. An initiative of Department of personnel and training, Government of India. Available at: https://rti.gov.in/ (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

14. See Online RTI, Beginner’s guide to Right to Information, 2005. Available at: https://onlinerti.com/about-rti (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021). 

15. Chief Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur (2011) 15 SCC, para 8. See also, Right to Information Act, 2005. Available at: https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021). 

16. See Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: — Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford University Press, New Delhi (1966); See also, Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution: —The Indian Experience (1999).

17. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149, at para 234. See also Secretary, Ministry of I&B, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 S.C.C. at para 161. Also, see State of U.P. V. Raj Narain 1975 AIR 865.

18. Aditya Singh, Role of RTI in Good Governance, Law Column. Available at: https://bit.ly/3hYwHMa (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

19. See, Section 4, Right to Information Act, 2005. Available at: https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

20. See generally, Leonid Peisakhin and Paul Pinto, Is transparency an effective anti-corruption strategy? Evidence from a field experiment in India. Regulation & Governance 4 (2010), pp. 141–280

21. Ibid.

22. See generally, Olatunde Julius Otusanya,” Corruption as an obstacle to development in developing countries: A review of literature”, Journal of Money Laundering Control (2011), Vol. 14 Iss. 4, pp. 387 - 422

23. M.M. Ansari, Information Commissioner (India), Impact of Right to Information on Development: A Perspective on India’s Recent Experiences, 15 (Lecture delivered at UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, May 15, 2008), at p.18. Available at: http://cccindia.org.in/A+perspective.pdf (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

24. Jeevan Singh Rajak, Corruption in India: Nature, Causes, Consequences and Cure, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Volume 18, Issue 5 (Nov. - Dec. 2013), pp. 20-24, at p.20. Available at: https://bit.ly/3hvvPzA (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

25. Arghya Sengupta, Anticorruption Litigation in The Supreme Court of India, Legal Remedies for Grand Corruption: The Role of Civil Society, Open Society Foundation, 2019. p.63. Available at: https://bit.ly/3hWYahv (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021). See, also Combating Corruption, Good Governance Practices for The Protection of Human Rights. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. United Nations, 2007, at p.65 Available at: https://bit.ly/2VwAbhA (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

26. Jeevan Singh Rajak, Corruption in India: Nature, Causes, Consequences and Cure, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Volume 18, Issue 5 (Nov. - Dec. 2013), pp. 20-24, at p.23. Available at: https://bit.ly/3hvvPzA (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

27. See Harsh Mander & Abha Joshi, The Movement for Right to Information in India: People’s Power for the Control of Corruption, at p.4. Available at: https://bit.ly/3h2oN5o (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

28. Right to Information in India: An Effective Tool to Tackle Corruption, The Asia Foundation. September 28, 2011. Available at: https://bit.ly/2TJcVMT (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

29. See, Right to Information Act 2005. Chapter V. “Powers and Functions of Information Commissioner, Appeal and Penalties.” Section 18(3). Available at: https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

30. Ibid. Section 19.

31. Ibid. Section 5.

32. Online RTI. Beginner’s guide to Right to Information, 2005. Available at: https://onlinerti.com/about-rti (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

33. Right to Information in India: An Effective Tool to Tackle Corruption, The Asia Foundation. September 28, 2011. Available at: https://bit.ly/2TJcVMT (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

34. Observer News Service, A Successful Decade of RTI Act, November, 2018. Available at: https://bit.ly/3hvaq9Z (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

35. Ibid.

36. Sambit Bhattacharyya and Jha Raghbendra, Economic growth, Law and Corruption: Evidence from India. Comparative Economic Studies, 55, (2013). pp. 287-313. p.16

37. Ibid. p.22.

38. See generally, Leonid Peisakhin and Paul Pinto, Is transparency an effective anti-corruption strategy? Evidence from a field experiment in India. Regulation & Governance 4 (2010), pp. 141–280.

39. Maneesh Chhibber, In 15 years, RTI has gone from Indian citizens’ most powerful tool to an Act on life support, The Print, 24 June, 2020. Available at: https://bit.ly/3k9Y5K4 (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

40. K.J. Rani, Right to Information Act in India: An Effective Tool to Combat Corruption, Tummala, K.K. (Ed.) Corruption in the Public Sector: An International Perspective (Public Policy and Governance, Vol. 34), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, (2021), pp. 43-55 at p.48.

41. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Patterns of RTI Workload on Central Public Authorities Over the Last Seven Years (2012-19). Available at: https://bit.ly/3wG02AE (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

42. Satark Nagrik Sangathan & Centre for Equity Studies, Status of Information Commissions in India during Covid-19 Crisis, May 2020. Available at: https://bit.ly/2T9hMqi (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

43. Maneesh Chhibber, In 15 years, RTI has gone from Indian citizens’ most powerful tool to an Act on life support, The Print, 24 June, 2020. Available at: https://bit.ly/3k9Y5K4 (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

44. Venkatesh Nayak, Quoted by Askhay Deshmane,“Diluting a right,” Frontline, 12 May, 2017. pp. 102–103. 

45. Masoom Reza, Right to Information: Fall of the Most Important Legislation, Academike, 30 December, 2020. Available at: https://bit.ly/3i6YvhM (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

46. Venkatesh Nayak, RTI amendments: Questionable Legislative competence, dual control and other legal quagmires, July 24, 2019, The leaflet. Available at: https://bit.ly/3qYI1fB (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021). Also, see, P. K. Dutta, what makes RTI Amendment Bill so controversial? India Today. July 23, 2019. 

47. Ministry of Law and Justice, The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019. Available at: https://bit.ly/3ka4zIU (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021). See also, PRS Legislative Research, Explainer: The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019, Available at: https://bit.ly/3hUjOms (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

48. Anjali Bhardwaj & Amrita Johri, Right to Information: Dangerous knowledge, India Today, 2 August, 2019. Available at: https://bit.ly/3r2XMBX (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021). See, also, supra note 109.

49. The absence of the cogent justifications; public consultation; a failure to address the real lacunae in the RTI institutions; and the un-deliberated hasty passage of the bill in the parliament. These among other unwarranted and alarming episodes have cast a shadow of doubt upon the intention of the government.

50. M. Sridhar Acharyulu, It’s Been 15 Years Since RTI Act Was Passed, But Is it Really Working? The Wire, 19 Oct. 2020, Available at: https://bit.ly/3yQ7Tga (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

51. Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SSN) and the Centre for Equity Studies (CES), Report Card of Information Commissions in India, 2018-19. Available at: https://bit.ly/3r1r4RG (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).

52. See supra note 44.

53. Ibid.

54. Masoom Reza, Right to Information: Fall of the Most Important Legislation, Academike, 30 December, 2020. Available at: https://bit.ly/3i6YvhM (Last accessed on: 25/08/2021).