freedom of information | news | links | measuring openness

MARCH 2006
INDIA: Citizens charged prohibitive fees to access government information
The Indian freedom of information law, passed last year, guarantees that the public may inspect all information held by government agencies. However, the government claims that the significant costs of collecting and copying so many records have forced it to charge higher fees to citizens who seek information. For example, one poor farmer in Chhattisgarh sought information from a local government body regarding paddy field purchases; the authorities found and photocopied more than 90,000 documents and sent the farmer, who earns less than $1 per day, a bill for 182,000 rupees ($4,100).
SOURCE: Alok Prakash Putul, "Indians find information too costly," BBC News (March 14, 2006), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4739306.stm.

JANUARY 2006
Transparency demanded on demolitions of illegal structures by Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Member of the National Advisory Council Aruna Roy and transparency activist Shekhar Singh (National Campaign for People's Right to Information) have asked the Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit to publicise the names of all the officers responsible for allowing building code violations, in addition to the list of buildings itself. They have also asked for the criteria used to identify violating structures. Read more.

SOURCE: Arvind Kejriwal, "Transparency demanded on Delhi demolitions," India Together (2 January 2006).

The Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that access to government information was an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.(1) The Court ruled in 2002 that voters have a right to know information about candidates for elected offices and ordered the Election Commission to make candidates publish information about criminal records, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications.(2)

The Right to Information Act was approved by the Parliament in May 2005 and signed by the President in June 2005.(3) Certain preliminary clauses went into effect immediately, but the entire Act came into force in October 2005. The Act replaces the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 which was adopted in January 2003 but never came into force.(4)

Under the national Act, all Indian citizens have a right to ask to ask for information not only from Central Government public authorities, but also from public authorities under the jurisdiction of the states. This includes local level bodies (called panchayats). The Act covers all public authorities set up by the Constitution or statute, as well as bodies controlled or substantially financed by the Government or non-government organizations which are substantially funded by the Government. Citizens can not only request to inspect or copy information, but the Act also allows them to make an application to inspect public works and take samples.

Applications must be submitted to a Public Information Officer (PIO) who must be appointed in every unit of a public authority. Applications may also be sent to an Assistant PIO, who should be appointed at local levels, who will forward the request to the relevant PIO. The PIO must respond in writing within thirty days or if the request concerns the life or liberty of a person, within 48 hours.

The Act includes a list of exemptions, although they are all subject to a blanket override whereby information may be released if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest. Exemptions cover disclosures that would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic or economic interests of the State, relations with foreign States, would lead to incitement of an offence, has been expressly forbidden to be published by a court or tribunal, could constitute a contempt of court; would endanger the life or safety of a person or identify a source used by law enforcement bodies, would impede an investigation or apprehension or prosecution of an offender, would cause a breach of parliamentary privilege; Cabinet papers (although materials relied upon must be released after decisions are made), commercial confidence information, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party, information available due to a fiduciary relationship, information obtained in confidence from a foreign government and personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

An internal appeal can be made against decisions to a nominated person who is senior in rank to the PIO. A second appeal can be made to newly established Information Commissions at the Central and State levels or alternatively, a complaint can be made directly to these Commissions. Information Commissions have a broad remit to hear cases related to any matter relating to access under the Act. They have investigative powers and can make binding decisions. Information Commissions can make any order necessary to ensure compliance with the Act (including requiring a public authority to publish information, appoint PIOs, produce annual reports and make changes to record management), and can also order compensation and impose penalties.

The Act attempts to bar appeals to the courts, but as the right to information is a constitutional right, it would appear that citizens still have the right to go to the High Court or Supreme Court if they feel their right has been infringed.

Fines and disciplinary proceedings can be ordered for a range of offences, including refusing to access an application, delaying providing information (for which a daily penalty can be imposed), provision of false, misleading or incomplete information and obstruction of information officials.

The Act also imposes duties to monitor and promote the law. All public authorities must proactive publish and disseminate a very wide range of information, including details of the services they provide, their organizational structure, their decision-making norms and rules, opportunities for public consultation, recipients of government subsidies, licences, concessions, or permits, categories of information held, and contact details of PIOs. Public authorities must also maintain indexes of all records and over time computerize and network their records. Information Commissions must monitor implementation and produce annual reports. To the extent that resources are available, Governments must also provide training for officials and conduct public education activities, including publishing a User's Guide.

Implementation of the Right to Information Act has been varied across the country. The Central Government, which sponsored the Act, has been relatively active, although it was slow in putting in place systems, in ensuring fulsome proactive disclosure and in setting up the Central Information Commission. To date, more than 20 states have appointed Information Commissioners, although actually setting up and providing adequate resources to the Information Commission offices has often been slow. Applications are being made throughout the country, with varying levels of success. It has been reported that local panchayat officials have been particularly slow in coming to terms with their duties under the new law.

Although the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which is based on the 1911 UK OSA, has not been repealed, the Right to Information Act specifically states that its provisions will have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in the OSA or any other law.(5) The OSA prohibits the unauthorized collection or disclosure of secret information and is frequently used against the media.(6)

The Public Records Act, 1993 sets a thirty year rule for access to archives.(7) The Right to Information Act specifically states that information shall be provided under the Act after 20 years, but it then specifies that certain exemptions will still apply beyond this period.

At the time the national Right to Information Act was passed, eight states and one territory had passed their own access laws, largely in response to pressure from local activists fighting corruption. Acts were passed in Tamil Nadu, (1997) Goa (1997), Rajasthan (2000), Karnataka (2000), Delhi (2001), Maharashtra (2002), Assam (2003), Madhya Pradesh (2003) and Jammu & Kashmir (2004). Uttar Pradesh and Chattisgarh also adopted Codes of Practice and Executive Orders on Access to Information.(8) With the passage of the national Act, the state laws are either lapsing or being specifically repealed. However, the Jammu and Kashmir Act will continue to operate in respect of state public authorities, because the Central Government cannot legislate for Jammu and Kashmir due to its special constitutional status.

2004 freedominfo.org Global Survey Results - India

Back to top

UPDATED 13 JULY 2005
India Approves Stronger Right to Information Law
India's Lok Sobha (note) approved a new and stronger Right to Information Act on May 11, 2005. One of the co-founders of India's National Campaign for the Peoples' Right to Know, Shekhar Singh, commented that the act "has turned out rather well and certainly better than we expected."

The new law replaces a weaker law enacted by the Lok Sobha in 2002 but never entered into force by the previous government, which was replaced in the elections of 2004 by the Sonia Gandhi-led Congress Party coalition. Mrs. Gandhi made the right to information a major component of her platform, and appointed a distinguished group of civil society advisers, including Aruna Roy of MKSS, as a National Advisory Council to hold the new government to its promises. Read more.

24 JUNE 2005
Latest Analysis of New India Right to Information Law:
"Good, Bad, and Ugly (maybe)" Says Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

Analysis by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
CHRI Conference Report, Effective Implementation: Preparing to Operationalise the Right to Information Act, 2005

After a number of false starts and even one Act which was on the books but never came into force, it is with much excitement that the Right to Information Act 2005 has finally been enacted by the Indian Government. The Act has been passed after hectic lobbying by civil society over the last year, since the new Government came into power with an explicit commitment to making the old law "more progressive, participatory and meaningful".

The Act is considerably better than the previous national law, although it still contains some shortcomings. Click here for a review of the key provisions in the new law

30 JUNE 2004
The Right to Know is the Right to Live
Profile of a Remarkable Peoples' Movement in India that Links Information to Livelihood
The pioneering right-to-information work of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in India has won remarkable victories in the struggle against corruption, both at the village and national levels. Read more.

27 FEBRUARY 2004
INDIA: Citizens in Pune Exercising Right to Know
Newindpress.com (India) reports that Maj Gen (retd) S C N Jatar, who heads the Nagrik Chetna Manch in Pune, has invoked the Right to Information Act to leave the city administration red in the face, exposing the misuse of official cars by elected representatives.

What he found was that not only were the cars taken outside city limits for personal use, not even paying the nominal sum they are supposed to, but on several days, mayor Dipti Chowdhury was recorded as being in two places at the same time. Favourite destinations: tourist spots and pilgrim points.

As for the last item on Jatar's right to know list, an audit on the use of the vehicles, Pune Municipal Corporation's (PMC) public information officer (PIO) finally confessed: no audit had ever been conducted.

Jatar checked out logbook entries of official cars allotted to mayor Chowdhury, deputy mayor Dilip Barate, PMC standing committee chairman Dilip Tupe, Leader of Opposition Ramesh Bagwe.

Quizzed on the indiscriminate use of the official car, Bagwe came up with a bewildering explanation: ``I see myself as a worker of the downtrodden, my people feel proud to see me in an official car.''

Mayor Chowdhury insisted she used her official car outside city limits "only in an emergency, though I have used the car sometimes to visit religious places."

Asked how could she be at two places at the same time, Chowdhury said: ``What can I do if corporators keep using my spare car?''

The PMC rulebook says that cars allotted to office-bearers can be taken outside municipal limits only with the mayor's permission and on payment of a nominal sum.

22 NOVEMBER 2003
INDIA: Effectiveness of Indian Access to Information Law
The Times of India reports on the Indian Right to Information law suggesting that the law exists more in name than in actual practice.

Empowered by Right to Information Act, Ashfaque Ahmed wanted to know how many cars were owned by his municipality. He applied to the corporation for this basic bit of information. After receiving no reply from the public information officer, specially appointed for this purpose, he approached the Lokayukta. Ahmed discovered that he was only one of 187 complainants to have approached the Lokayukta's office from the time the act got presidential assent on August 11.

The Lokayukta has been forced to reject 90 per cent of the appeals on the grounds that the complaints were not accompanied by an appropriate order from the concerned department stating why the information sought cannot be made available."We are not supposed to be in the picture unless the applicant has an order in hand," said a Lokayukta official. "If the information officer does not provide the information sought, the applicant is supposed to appeal to the appellate authority in that public office. Only if that officer rules against giving information can the applicant approach us with that order."

Unfortunately, there is little or no public awareness about the act and few know that they can ask for almost any kind of information from any government office and get it, unless it is classified.

11 OCTOBER 2003
INDIA: India To Establish Records and Archives Management Act
The Times of India reports that India is planning to establish a ‘Records and Archives Management Act,’ in order to streamline record management practices and to guarantee the right to information.

According to the provisions of the contemplated Act, a Records and Archives Management Advisory Board will be established with a chairman and members from the national archives and the departments of education, finance and culture.

The board will be responsible for advising the government on matters pertaining to public records and archives. All records except those which are classified as confidential will be available for public perusal and inspection.

29 AUGUST 2003
INDIA: Access to Information Does not Dissuade Ration Cheats
The Indian Express reports of the difficulties faced by residents in New Delhi's slum clusters in accessing their ration records. Two hundred and fifty residents have filed applications for accessing ration shop records in their areas.

In north-east Delhi’s Sundernagari sector, 17 ration shop owners have managed to obtain a high court stay order, at least till October, that has led to the denial of the residents' applications. Meanwhile, all over Delhi, rice, wheat and kerosene are being sold at higher rates, if at all, to lower-income groups.

Since a food department letter denying Sundernagari’s records to the applicants reached the NGO Parivartan which spearheaded the movement yesterday, other applicants too are doubtful of their records being made available to them.

Meanwhile, the problem persists. When 23-year-old Triveni from Sundernagari filed for her ration records in March, she discovered that the local dealer had been siphoning off her provisions with fake thumb prints. Now similar complaints are pouring in from all over Delhi.

There are hundreds like Usha Kiran from Seemapuri who have never signed for their ration. ‘‘Forget a receipt, the owner signs for me,’’ she said. Added Suman, who is among the 40 from the area, ‘‘When they do give us rice and wheat, it is not fit for human consumption. By the time we clean it, only half the quantity is left.’’

Triveni, meanwhile, alleged that she has been receiving threats from the ration shop owner since Sunday. Having procured signatures of the residents of her area, she has now written to the public grievance commission against harassment.

10 AUGUST 2003
INDIA: Threat to Fast-unto-Death Leads to Clearing of FOI Bill
A day before crusader Anna Hazare's proposed fast-unto-death, the Union Home Ministry on Friday cleared Maharashtra Government's Right to Information Bill, reports Newindpress.com. The Bill was one of the long-standing demands of Hazare.

Talking to reporters, BJP national general secretary Pramod Mahajan said: "The bill has been cleared by the Union Home Ministry and will be sent for presidential nod in due course of time." Mahajan also had a discussion on the issue with Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani.

Mahajan's statement assumes significance in the wake of Hazare's letter to Advani on August 1, 2003, which stated that the "onus of his (Hazare's) fast-unto-death with respect to the State's Right to Information Bill will solely be with the Deputy Prime Minister".

16 MAY 2003
INDIA: Bureaucrats Hinder FOIA Process
The Times of India reports that the recently passed and yet-to-be implemented Indian Freedom of Information act is being "defanged" by the lack of any prescribed punishment for bureaucrats who bureaucrats who withhold information.

Rules being framed will insulate erring officials from punitive action: the cost of violating the right to information will only be a mere adverse entry in their confidential reports.

Department officials maintained no leniency was being shown to bureaucrats. "This is a totally new experience for the officials... we will see how this Act works and if we later feel the need for introducing stringent punishment, we will do so," remarked a senior official. He, however, admitted that it would take some time to change the prevailing mindset of officials who were known not to part with any kind of information, irrespective of how trivial it might be.

3 DECEMBER 2002
INDIA: Lower House Passes Freedom of Information Bill
The Hindustan Times reports that India's lower house, the Lok Sabha, has approved a Freedom of Information bill enabling citizens to have access to information on a statutory basis.

Under the bill, every public authority is obligated to provide information and maintain all records consistent with its operational requirements. It also orders that records are duly catalogued, indexed and published at such intervals as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government or the competent authority.

Almost all members, who participated in the debate, welcomed the Bill and said ensuring access to information would also ensure accountability. They said the functioning of the Government should be made more transparent and people given access to information under the control of public authorities.

UPDATE 12/16/02: The Hindu Newspaper reports that both houses of the Indian Parliament have now approved a Freedom of Information Bill that will provide its citizens a statutory right to access official information.

The Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Vasundhara Raje, said the move would provide openness in Government functioning and promised that the effort was not a one-off measure but a "novel and far-reaching experiment" through which the Government would learn as it moved along.

With the passage of the Bill, India will be among the 20 or so countries to have legislated a measure which was in the direction of providing transparency, openness and accountability in Government functioning.

Notes

1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain and Others [(1975) 4 SCC 428. Also see S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149); See Government of India, Report of the Working Group on Right to Information and Promotion of Open and Transparent Government, May 1997. For a detailed review of the situation of freedom of information in India until 2001, See Article 19, Global Trends on the Right to Information: A Survey of South Asia, July 2001. Available at http://www.article19.org/

2. Union of India v. Association For Democratic Reforms. Civil Appeal No 7178 of 2001.

3. Right to Information Act, No. 22 of 2005. http://persmin.nic.in/RTI/WebActRTI.htm

4. Freedom of Information Act 2002, Act No. 5 of 2003, 6 January 2003.

5. The Official Secrets Act, 1923, Act no. 19 of 1923.

6. See Govt still not clear on what's a secret, Times of India, 8 January 2003.

7. Public Records Act, 1993. No. 69 OF 1993(22 December 1993). http://nationalarchives.nic.in/public_record93.html

8. See http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/states/default.htm

Back to top