Media and Right to

Information
By: Hifajatali Sayyed
 Introduction
• Information is regarded as the oxygen of democracy. It is used to
strengthen democracy.

• If people do not know what is happening in their society, if the

actions of those who rule them are hidden, then they cannot take a
meaningful part in the affairs of the society.

• Freedom of expression, free dissemination of ideas and access to

information are vital to the functioning of a democratic government.

• Information reflects and captures government activities and

processes.
 Introduction
• After independence secrecy was the rule in the working of the
government and transparency was the exception.

• In the name of protecting the State’s interest, secrecy in public affairs

has been used to protect the actions of government from public scrutiny.

• The first attempt relating to the recognition of information to the

public regarding public affairs was made by enacting the Freedom of
Information Act of 2002. The Act provided for appeals only within
the government bodies. It barred jurisdiction of the courts.

• As there were some weaknesses in the Act so it was replaced by the

Right to Information Act, 2005.
Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
• Indian Express Newspapers vs Union of India (AIR 1986 SC
515)

• In this case, the Supreme Court upheld that right to

information is part of freedom of speech and expression.

• The Court stated that the public interest in freedom of discussion (of
which the freedom of the press is one aspect) stems from the
requirement that members of a democratic society should be
sufficiently informed that they may influence intelligently
the decisions which may affect themselves.
Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms
(AIR 2002 SC 2112)

• In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a High Court order

mandating the Election Commission to obtain and disclose to the
public, background information relating to candidates
running for election to Parliament and to the Legislative
Assemblies, including information on their assets, criminal
records, and educational background. The Supreme Court
ruled that the right to know about public officials is derived
from the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 In order to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court judgment in
Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (AIR 2002
SC 2112), the legislature introduced section 33-B in The
Representation of the People Act, 1951.
 Sec 33-B states that notwithstanding anything contained in any
judgment, decree or order of any court or any direction, order
or any other instruction issued by the Election Commission, no
candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such
information, in respect of his election which is not
required to be disclosed or furnished under this Act or the
rules made there under.
Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (AIR
2003 SC 2363)

• In this case, the petitioner challenged the validity of Section

33B of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

• Here the Court stated that in a democracy, the will of the people
is expressed in periodic elections.

• 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 candidates.
 Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India
Cont…

• Further, freedom of expression is not limited to oral or written

expression, but also includes voting as a form of expression.

• Even though the right to vote itself may not be a

fundamental right, but right to make choice by means of
ballot is part of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).

• The Court concluded that Section 33-B of the Representation of

People Act, 1951, is unconstitutional.
 Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India Cont…

• The Court stated that firstly, it froze and stagnated the right to
information by nullifying the effect of any order or judgment
requiring disclosure of information. Instead, the right to information is
a dynamic right that should be allowed to grow.

• Secondly, the Act inadequately required disclosure of

information with respect to criminal background of the
candidates, and assets and liabilities of candidates and their
spouse and children. However, the Court held that by not providing for
disclosure of educational qualifications, it cannot be said that Article
19(1)(a) has been violated.
 Laws dealing with Secrecy
 Official Secrets Act, 1923:
• This Act makes provision for espionage and also against
communication of official information to outsiders.
• It provides punishment to a person who obtains, collects, records or
publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official
code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other
document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is
intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy or which
relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State
or friendly relations with foreign States.
 Laws dealing with Secrecy
 The Evidence Act, 1872:

• Sec 123 and sec 124 of Evidence Act deals with secrecy of
information.

• Sec 123 of Evidence Act deals with Evidence as to affairs of

State.

• It states that no one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived

from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State,
except with the permission of the officer at the head of the
department concerned, who shall give or withhold such
permission as he thinks fit.
 Laws dealing with Secrecy
 The Evidence Act, 1872:

• Sec 124 of Evidence Act deals with Official Communications..

• It states that no public officer shall be compelled to disclose

communications made to him in official confidence, when
he considers that the public interests would suffer by the
disclosure.
Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 The State of Punjab vs Sodhi Sukhdev Singh (AIR 1961 SC
493)

• In this case, the Court held that the documents containing the
minutes of meetings of the Council of Ministers and
indicate the advice which the Council of Ministers gave to
the Raj Pramukh are protected under section 123 of
Evidence Act. If the head of the department does not give
permission for their production, than the Court cannot compel the
State to produce them.
 Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 State of U.P vs Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 865)

• In this case, the Court took a different view from that of Sodhi
Sukhdev Singh’s case. The present case was dealing with the privilege
attached to the Blue-Book containing rules and instructions for
the protection of Prime Minister when on travel.

• Here the Court held that the residual power to decide whether the
disclosure of a document was in the public interest or not,
vested with the Court and for that purpose, it had the power to
inspect the document, if necessary. The Court further held that the
statement of the head of the department that the disclosure would injure
the public interest was not final.
 Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 S P Gupta vs Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149)

• In this case, the Court criticized the reasoning given in Sodhi Sukhdev
Singh’s case and adopted a liberal view of the disclosure of official
documents.

• Here the Court stated that the immunity given to documents is not
absolute in all circumstances. There are two aspects which are to be
considered. The first one is that the disclosure of such information
would not affect the public interest and the second one is that no
one should be denied justice by withholding such evidence.

• And this task of balancing the interest must be performed by

the Courts in all cases.
 Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 Tata Press Limited vs MTNL (AIR 1995 SC 2438)
• In this case, the Court stated that the public has the right to receive
information.
• Here the Court while dealing with the aspect of commercial speech
stated that advertisement is one of the form of dissemination of
information.
• The Court further stated that protection under Article 19 (1)(a) is
available not only to the speaker but also to the recipient of
the speech.
• An advertisement giving information regarding a life saving drug may
be of much more importance to general public than to the advertiser
who may be having purely a trade consideration.
Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vs Cricket
Association of Bengal (AIR 1995 SC 1236)

• In this case, the Court while dealing with the right of a person as to
telecast a sports event on television stated that under right
under Article 19 (1)(a) includes right to receive and acquire
information.

• The Court further held that the right to freedom of speech and
expression also includes the right to educate, to inform and to
entertain.
Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India (2003) 5 SCC 494

• In this case, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court filed a petition

demanding the publication of enquiry report in respect of
certain allegations of alleged involvement of sitting Judges
of the High Court of Karnataka in certain incidents.

• Here the Court declined the disclosure of information stating

that the report made to the Chief Justice of India is wholly
confidential. The said report is only for the purpose of
satisfaction of the Chief Justice of India that such a report has
been made. It is purely preliminary in nature, ad hoc and not final.
Judicial Perspective on Right to Information
 People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India (AIR
2004 SC 1442)
• In this case, the petitioner sought disclosure of information
from the respondent relating to the safety violations and
defects in nuclear installations and power plants.
• The respondent took the defence that the information is highly
sensitive and classified.
• Here the Supreme Court held that the information is rightly
withheld in the public interest.
• It is criticized that the Court was silent on public interest in safety
and protection against accidents in nuclear plants.
 Right to Information and Media
 The media have an essential role in the development of the
Information Society and are recognised as an important
contributor to freedom of expression and plurality of
information.

 They are pervasive and play a significant role in shaping

societies; they provide the public sphere of information and debate
that enables social and cultural discourse, participation and
accountability.

 They are the most accessible, cost-effective and widespread

source of information and platform for expression.
 Right to Information and Media
 The media should provide a forum for debate on topics of
public interest, cultural expression and opportunity to
communicate, especially to the poor and marginalized.

 The media should be involved in raising awareness, channeling

civil society concerns, debating policies and holding
government, private sector and civil society accountable.

 Under the RTI Act, the media can seek information relating to
action taken by government to resolve the issues and can publish
such information if there is unreasonable delay in disposing the
concerned issue.
 Right to Information and Media
 The media should work for poor and disadvantaged people by:

• making people more aware of their rights and entitlements.

• enabling people to have access to government programmes,

schemes and benefits.

• educating the public on social, economic and environmental issues.

• drawing attention to institutional failings – corruption, fraud,

waste, inefficiency, abuse of power and the like.

• fostering exchange of best practices, knowledge resources, access to

better technology, and to better choices.

• providing a space for citizens to dialogue with other actors in

the governance process.