chkdhjckhgsfjhlfhaskjchbzccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxbbbbxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx“Mrs Poonam Kumari” for her guidance and constant supervision as well as for
providing necessary information regarding the project during class lectures. However, it would
not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals and organizations.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to my colleague, librarian, and non- teaching staff who

However, it can be said without any hesitation that India has finally woken up to realize that right
of Information is a key component in the attainment of economic social and political rights of an
Individual as well as the community at large. 1

Right to know under Article 21

This Right to Information is not absolute , in case of public interest it can be denied as well as
when the information leads to infringement of public security.

This principle of public security is evolved and now it has been recognised that while a public
servant may be subject to a duty of confidentiality, this duty does not extend to remaining silent
regarding corruption of other public servants. Society is entitled to know and public interest is
better served if corruption or maladministration is exposed.2

1
Anushree Adhau, Right to Information Act 2005 - an overview (2016) (unpublished, LLM 1st year; Nalsar Hyderabad)

2
Dinesh trivedi vs union of india , (1997) 4 SCC 306 : JT 1997 (4) SC 237 .

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page1

The right to information provided by the parliament under section 33A of the Representation of
People Act in regard to the pending criminal cases and past involvement in such cases is
reasonably adequate to safeguard right to information vested in voters/citizens3. The right to get
information in democracy is recognised all throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the
concept of democracy.

Evolution of right to information in India

The legal position with regard to RTI has developed through several decisions given by the
supreme court in the context of the right to freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1) of
the constitution ], which has been said to be the obverse side of the right to know, and one cannot
be exercised without the other. The interesting aspect of these judicial pronouncements has been
that the scope of the right has gradually widened.4

The importance of information as an empowering tool is well explained by several tradition

script and international associations. Information is basis for knowledge, which provokes thought

3
People’s union for civil liberties(PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2326 :2003 (4) SCC 399.
4
Sudhir naib, The Right to Information Act 2005:A Handbook,2nd edition, pg no-21(oxford university press)

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page2

, and without thinking process there is no expression . Freedom of expression is the running
theme of democratic governance. Information is oxygen for the democratic society.5

The development of RTI as a part of the constitutional law of the country started with a petition
by the media to the Supreme Court for enforcement of certain logistical implications of the right
to freedom of speech and expression which would permit them to challenge governmental orders
for control of news print, ban on distribution of papers, etc. It was through these cases that the
concept of the public’s right to know developed.

In 6Bennett Coleman and company V Union of India, the petitioner, a publishing house
bringing out one of the leading dailies (The times of India), challenged the government’s news
print policy which put restrictions on the acquisition, sale, and consumption of news print. This
was challenged as restricting the petitioner’s right to freedom of freedom of speech and
expression. The court struck down the news print control order saying that it directly affected the
petitioner’s right to freely publish and circulate their paper. In that, it violated their right to
freedom of speech and expression.

The Judges also remarked: “It is indisputable that by freedom of the press meant the right of all
citizens to speak, publish, and express their views and freedom of speech and expression
includes with its compass the right of all citizens to read and be informed.”

The clear enunciation of the fundamental right to information was seen in the7 State of Uttar
Pradesh V Raj Narain and Others. In this case, the respondent had summoned documents
pertaining to the security arrangements and the expenses incurred thereon of the then Prime
Minister. The Supreme Court, in examining the case, considered the question of whether
privilege could be claimed by the government of Utter Pradesh under Section 123 of The
Evidence Act in respect of what has been described for the sake of brevity to be the Blue Book,
which contained guidelines for the protection of Prime Minister while on tour and travel.

The court observed that while there are overwhelming arguments for giving to the Executive the
power to determine what matters may prejudice public security, those arguments do not sanction
giving the Executive exclusive power to determine what matters may prejudice public interest.
Once considerations of national security are left out, there are few matters of public interest
which cannot be safely discussed in public. The Court further stated that ‘the right to know
which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which
5
Niraj Kumar, Treatise on Right to Information Act (1st ed. 2005)pg ,46
6
Bennett Coleman and company V Union of India AIR 1986 BOM 321
7
State of UttarPradesh V Raj Narain and Others, 1975 AIR865,SCR(3)333

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page3

should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no
repercussion on public security’. Justice KK Mathew pertinently observed, ‘in a government of
responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct,
there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act,
everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know
the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing’.

To cover matters of routine business with a veil of secrecy is not in the interest of public. Such
secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. The responsibility of officials to explain or to justify
their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption.

In8 Indian Express Newspaper(Bombay) Private Ltd and Others, etc V Union of India and
Others,

The supreme court observed, ’the public interest in freedom of discussion of which the freedom
of the press is one aspect stems from the necessity that the members of a democratic society
should be sufficiently informed that they may influence intelligently the decisions which may
affect themselves’.

The Court stated that Freedom of Expression serves four broad social purposes:

(a) It helps an individual attain self-fulfilment;

(b) It assist in the discovery of truth;
(c) It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision-making;
(d) It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance
between stability and social change. All members of society should be able to form their
own beliefs and communicate them freely to others.

In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people’s right to know9.

In10 Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting V Government of India and

Others, the Supreme Court considered the question of the right to telecast sports events. The

8
Indian Express Newspaper(Bombay) Private Ltd and Others, etc V Union of India and Others, 1986AIR515,1985SCR(2)287

9
Sudhir naib, The Right to Information Act 2005:A Handbook,2nd edition, pg no-22(oxford university press)

10
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting V Government of India and Others, 1995 AIR1236,1995SCC(2)161

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page4

Court summarised the law on the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) as
restricted by article 19(2) as:

The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and to disseminate
it. Freedom of Speech and expression is necessary, for self-fulfilment.it enables people to
contribute to debate on social and moral issues. It is the best way to find a truest model of
anything, since it is only through it that the widest possible range of ideas can circulate. It is the
only vehicle of political discourse so essential to democracy. Equally important artistic and
scholarly endeavours of all sorts.

Further, the court observed, ‘the right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right
to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and entertained.
The former is the right of the telecaster and the latter that of the viewers.

Thereafter, the court held:

True democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the
polity of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the country is meaningless unless
the citizens are well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon
to express their views. One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-
information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce when
medium of information is monopolized either by a partisan central authority or by private
individuals or oligarchic organizations. This is particularly so in a country like ours where about
65 percent of the population is illiterate and hardly 1.5 percent of the population has an access to
the print media which is not subject to pre-censorship.

In11 Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others V Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court dealt
with a petition for disclosure of a report submitted by Vohra Committee chaired by Home
Secretary N.N. Vohra. In this case, the court dealt with citizen’s right to freedom of information
and observed, ‘in modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to
know the affairs of the government which, having been elected by them, seek to formulate sound
policies of governance aimed at their welfare’.

The court further observed ‘democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of a free
society and the sunlight is the best disinfectant.

In12 S.P. Gupta V Union of India,

11
Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others V Union of India and Others,(1997) 4 SCC 306
12
S.P. Gupta V Union of India,AIR1982 SC149

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page5

Justice P.N. Bhagwati observed; ‘the concept of an open government is the direct emanation fro
the Right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of freedom of free speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, discloser of information is regard to the
functioning of the government must be the rule and secrecy an exception’.

In 13People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Another V. Union of India, the Supreme
Court dealt with the issue of whether, before casting votes, voters, have a right to know relevant
particulars of their candidates such as assets, qualification, and involvement in offence.

The Supreme Court held that in a democracy, the electoral process has a strategic role. The
common people of this country should have the basic elementary right to know the full
particulars of a candidate who is to represent them in parliament. The right to get information in
a democracy is recognized all throughout, and it is right flowing from the concept of democracy.

The court thereafter held: ‘Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for provides for
freedom of speech and expression. Voters’ speech or expression in case of election would include
casting of voters, that is to say; voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose,
information about the candidate to be selected is must. Voter’s right to know antecedents,
including criminal past, of his candidate contesting election for MP or MLA is much more
fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The common man may think over before
making a choice of electing law breakers as law makers’.14

13
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Another V. Union of India,(2002) 3SCR284
14
Sudhir naib, The Right to Information Act 2005:A Handbook,2nd edition, pg no-21(oxford university press)

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page6

 Right to information at international forum

15
It is being increasingly recognised that access to information is not only human right but also
an important right to promote good governance and fight corruption. Over 70 countries have now
adopted a constitutional provision to provide right to access information. Most newly written
Constitution by countries in transition, especially in Central and Eastern Europe and Latin
America, included right to access information. Typically, the rights give any citizen or inhabitant
the right to demand information from government bodies in a number of countries including
India, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, Israel and France, the highest courts have found that there is a
right of access to information present in the constitution, typically as an element of freedom of
speech or freedom of the press. The issue is whether the constitution provision is enforceable on
its own.

There have been varied decisions on this. In the Philippines, the Supreme Court ruled in 1987
that the right could be applied directly, without the need for an additional act, on the other hand,
in South Africa, the constitution required that the government adopt a national freedom of

15

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page7

information law(FOI). Similarly, in Bulgaria, the constitutional Court ruled in 1996 that while
the Constitution gives a right of access, the right needed to be regulated by the law.

Freedom of information as a tool to make a government accountable is not a recent

phenomenon. Sweden has the oldest legislation relating to public access to official documents.
The Swedish Freedom of Press Act adopted in 1766 declared that government records way to be,
by default, open to public. It also granted citizens the right to demand from government bodies,
document prepared by them as well as those that we received by them, and for this, Swedish
citizens did not have to give a reason.

Documents that ware to be exempted from disclosure were defined in the Secrecy Act. Under the
secrecy act, the documents where secret only for a specified period of time.

The 1789 French declaration of the rights of man called for access to information about the
budget to be made freely available.

It is stated :

All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the
necessity of the public contribution and to grant this freely, to know to what uses it is put. A
similar declaration adopted in the Netherland in 1795 stated ‘Everyone has the right to concur in
requiring, from each functionary of Public Administration, an account and justification on his
conduct.’

However, for over 100 years, Sweden remained the only nation that took to transforming this
principle to a legal right. It was not until the creation of the UN that the concept of Right to
Information began to spread, and countries began to enact comprehensive laws for access to
governmental held documents and information.
16
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 called for all persons to have
a right to seek and receive information. Soon after, many Nordic countries began to look at the
sweetest model. Finland enacted the law on the Public Charter of Official Documents in 1951.

In 1946, the UN General Assembly considered ‘freedom of information is a fundamental human

right’ as well under Article 19 Universal Declaration on Human rights right to free expression
and seek to impart information is right provided to an individual. Sooner it was put under

16
Sudhir naib, The Right to Information Act 2005:A Handbook,2nd edition, pg no-21(oxford university press)

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page8

positive obligation of state so the state had to work dynamically to achieve that outcome in the
state.

Article 10 of the Convention on public reporting encourages countries to adopt measures to

improve public access to information as a means to fight corruption as corruption is outcome of
arbitrariness and UN is establish to serve and promote democracy, thus for the sake of
democracy this resolution was very important.

Limitations on RTI

Limitations under Indian Law on Right to Information, certain laws which are contrary to the
Right to Information in India and need to be amended in order to safeguard the Right to
Information Act. These laws are always under purview to check whether they are restricting the
effectiveness of RTI or not. Sections 123, 124, and 162 of The Indian Evidence Act resist the
disclosure of documents. Section 123 provides that any head of department may decline to
supply information on affairs of state by stating that it is a state secret will entitle not to reveal
the information. In a similar manner section 124 states that no public officer shall be forced to
disclose communications made to him in official confidence. Section 162 provides court not to
check a document relating to matters of state so that integrity and unity can b e conserved.

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page9

 The Atomic Energy Act, 1912 provides that it will be an offence to disclose information
controlled or preserved in restricted manner by the Central Government. Similarly the Central
Civil Services Act, 1965 provides a government servant not to correspond or part with any
official documents except in accordance with a general or special order of government. The
Official Secrets Act, 1923 as evident from its name, under section 5, provides that any
government official can mark a document as confidential so as to prevent its publication.17

CONCLUSION

RTI is a powerful tool that can deliver significant social benefits. It can provide a strong support
to democracy and promote good governance, by empowering the citizen’s ability to participate
effectively and hold government officials accountable. Rather than just providing information,
RTI Act in most of the countries has served to be an effective supervisory body ensuring all those
coming in purview of the Act to work in accordance with rules and regulation without
irregularities. However, stricter implementation of this law requires not only political will but
also civil societies, RTI activists and few key democratic features, such as respect for the rule of
law. Currently, the RTI Act in India is passing through a decisive phase, much more needs to be
done to facilitate its growth and development.

Mere protest against the lack of implementation of this law alone is not sufficient, one needs to
encourage this initiative taken, for the law to grow and mature. Thus it can be concluded that
citizens have a right to information and right to know about public affairs and governmental
functioning. The legislature, realizing the need and urgency of this requirement, has shown its

17
Global Media Journal - Indian Edition, Winter Issue / December 2010, DEMOCRATIC NEED OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT IN
INDIA by Mr. Subhrajyoti Kundu, Lecturer, Department of Mass Communication, University of North Bengal, Darjeeling, West Bengal

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page10

sensitivity and positive attitude by conferring upon citizens of India various statutory rights,
which advance the Right to information and expand its horizons to the deserving limits.

RTI under fundamental right recommended by judiciary and judicial interpretation of Article 19
and 21 leads to an evolutionary idea about the importance of ‘right to know’ .Without the
knowledge of the working of government and public authority we cannot conclude ourselves as
the responsible citizen of any country. This is a tool which helps us in knowing the exact status
of welfare provided to us.

This act shows radical shift in our governance culture and permanently impacts all agencies of
state by culture of secrecy to openness, from personalized despotism to authority coupled with
accountability and from unilateral decision making to participative governance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS -
 Introduction to the Constitution of India ( D D Basu )
 Bare Act- The Constitution of India
 Constitutional law of India ( V N Shukla )
 Commentary on Right to Information Act ( J N Barowala )
 The Right to Information Act 2005 ( Sudhir Naib )
 Tretise on Right to Information Act ( Niraj Kumar )

INTERNET –
[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page11
  Global Media Journal - Indian Edition(Mr. Subhrajyoti Kundu)
 Lawoctopus.com
 Indiankanoon,com

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES –

 Anushree Adhau, Right to Information Act 2005

[Right to Information as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India] Page12