Setting enquiry perimeters under RTI, 2005 Introduction

Shipra Diwedi

Information is vital source of knowledge and communications. Every information when put in right hands serves the better purpose of social development. However, any information, if put in the indictable hands, can be prove to be destructive. Sharing information has always been a wok of tactful handling. But how do we define the boundaries between what information should be shared and which ones to be restricted? 

Need for Right to Information Act, 2005

Before the enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005, the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 was in force. Howbeit, it had many exemptions in itself as well as from the statutory provisions which restricted the effective function and scope of the Act. The RTI Act, 2005 came into force to remove its drawbacks and provide efficient operation of the Act. This Act provides a detailed and well – balanced explanation of ways and methods to retrieve information from the authorities. Its lays down detailed proviso on obtaining any information which does not concern, in any way, with the defence and foreign affairs and is not pursued for the purpose of personal allegation or to defame a person out of his professional capacity. It has modified the restrictions to such an extent that any information apart from those mentioned under Sec. 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 can be easily asked and replied for. 

Misuse of RTI for Defamation

However, even after express mention of restriction upon seeking information which could tarnish the character of any such person holding power or regarding any such act which he performed in his professional capacity which could be used for his defamation, many instances have been witnessed whereby this progressive machinery has been fraudulently used for character assassination of persons, authorities or institutions, majorly as a part of deviated source of mishap or via communication of false inside source of information or for polarization of any political figure. 

Defamation is a criminal offence in India. What amounts to defamation and punishments thereof are explicitly defined under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. To put in simple words, defamation is the equilibrium between protecting one’s freedom of right to speech and other’s right to protect his good name. This act has been criminalized so as to protect one’s goodwill against any act or omission committed by him in his professional capacity or under undue influence or coercion. Often the authorities or any person designated therein has to take certain steps which may be tampered to tarnish his reputation. If the statement made is true, no action is taken against it, but if the statement issues or stated is found to be purposive of any malicious intent, it invites a strict legal action against it. 

Deviating from objectives 

The current trend of filing RTI to seek enquiries seems to be revolving around the agenda of humiliating the person in authority either for personal gains or for polarization in a politically sensitive environment. There is no doubt that a number of factors are responsible for this apt misuse of an efficient machinery, of which major drawback comes due to the heedless consideration and investigation upon the application to sort out generous grievances from those resulting from malicious intents. The flexibility showcased by the Act to enable an improved communication of information and righteous attitude of work performance has somewhere misled people to use it as a tool of deliberate character infringement without considering the aftermaths. This consistent exploitation of a vital Right has gradually weakened the mechanism of efficient and veracious delivery of justice. 

A step forward

Sir Martin Luther King Jr. has rightly pointed out, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” The fundamental objective behind ratification of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was to provide a secure and true façade of government apparatuses so that it could ensure transparent and effective governance in the country. But witnessing deviations in its functions, it is most likely that the law should be revised and strengthened to prevent any further misuse of such an effective governance tool. This process can begin with the equitable balance between the restrictions and tranquility in the statute so that unnecessary threats are outright dealt with. Secondly, as always emphasized upon, is the effective and efficient operation of duties by the government authorities to secure and ensure transpicuous mechanisms of the system. Thirdly, congruous action upon false claims and strict legal procedures should be complied to set an exemplary milestone so that precaution can be duly taken before any such offence. Lastly, social reforms can be most effective when society is at large to be affected by any such act. Social reforms are continuously and consistently have become an inseparable part of social development. Regular and consistent reforms for improving living standards for social evolution has helped in the past and is most appropriate to be utilized in the present and future as well. 

Shipra Diwedi

The author is an law student from Banasthali Vidyapith.