Analysis

Right to Information or Right to Deny?

The Erosion of Transparency in Indian Governance

How do we ensure accountability in a democracy if the very tools of transparency are rendered ineffective? Is the Right to Information Act (RTI) — hailed as a revolutionary instrument for empowering citizens — being diluted into a ‘right to deny’ information? Are the barriers erected under the guise of “personal information” undermining the very ethos of democratic accountability?

The Right to Information Act: A Game-Changer Turned Gatekeeper

Enacted in 2005, the RTI Act was celebrated as a landmark in the journey towards transparency and citizen empowerment. It was designed to provide ordinary citizens access to public information, making the government accountable. Over the years, however, the RTI has increasingly been weaponized — not by citizens but by public servants and authorities — to shield information rather than share it.

A concerning trend has emerged wherein requests for information are denied under the pretext of "personal information." This tactic transforms the RTI into a tool for evasion rather than transparency, empowering public authorities to decide what constitutes "personal" and depriving citizens of their constitutional right to information.

Case Study: Public Information or Personal Shield?

The case of ‘R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu’ is often cited to justify the distinction between personal and public information. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a citizen’s right to privacy protects personal matters from being disclosed unless a public interest is involved. While this principle is valid, its misapplication has led to several instances where crucial public information has been denied.

For example, in Girish Deshpande v. CIC (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that an individual’s income tax returns and service records constitute personal information and cannot be disclosed unless it serves a larger public interest. This precedent has since been used by authorities to block even legitimate RTI requests, diluting the spirit of transparency.

Misuse in Practice: The Weaponization of "Personal Information"

In many instances, authorities exploit the ambiguity of “personal information” to deny access to data that directly impacts public accountability:

  • Refusal to Share Salary Information:
    Cases abound where citizens seeking salary details of public servants — paid through taxpayer money — are denied on the grounds of privacy.
     
  • Sealing of Property Records:
    RTI requests seeking land acquisition details have often been rejected, citing personal privacy, even when public funds are involved.
     
  • Judicial Transparency:
    Courts have occasionally denied RTI requests for judge appointments and administrative decisions, citing privacy concerns, despite the obvious public interest involved. 

Judicial & Legislative Concerns

The erosion of RTI transparency often stems from the judiciary itself. For instance:

  • In Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2018), the Supreme Court reinforced that information related to third-party employment contracts is personal and not in public interest.
     
  • In the Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), the Court exempted disclosure of judicial collegium deliberations, citing confidentiality. 

While these judgments uphold the sanctity of privacy, they simultaneously create gray areas that public authorities misuse to evade scrutiny.

Safeguards to Prevent Misuse of RTI Denials

Refining the Definition of Personal Information: The term “personal information” must be more explicitly defined to avoid arbitrary interpretation. Only information unrelated to public duties should be exempt.

  • Balancing Privacy & Public Interest:
    Authorities should conduct a mandatory public interest test before rejecting an RTI request.
     
  • Independent Oversight:
    Strengthen the Central Information Commission (CIC) to function as a robust watchdog, ensuring that denials are justified and not motivated by malafide intent.
     
  • Accountability for Public Servants:
    Introduce penalties for officials who arbitrarily reject RTI requests or fail to provide adequate reasoning.

The Way Forward

For a law that was intended to empower citizens, the RTI Act is increasingly becoming a tool to shield power structures. It is imperative for the government to reassert the Act’s original intent through legislative amendments and judicial clarity. The balance between privacy and public interest must tilt in favor of transparency, especially when public funds or decision-making are involved.

Final Thoughts: Transparency Under Threat

Are we, as a democracy, backsliding into opacity under the guise of privacy protection? How do we ensure that the RTI fulfills its promise of empowering citizens rather than shielding authorities? If public accountability erodes under the weight of “personal information,” can democracy truly thrive?

The answers to these questions will determine whether the RTI remains a pillar of transparency or crumbles under its misuse. As citizens, we must vigilantly safeguard this tool and demand a legal framework that prioritizes public interest above bureaucratic evasion. Will the government rise to the occasion, or will the right to information become another casualty of selective interpretation?

01-Feb-2025

More by :  P. Mohan Chandran


Top | Analysis

Views: 349      Comments: 0





Name *

Email ID

Comment *
 
 Characters
Verification Code*

Can't read? Reload

Please fill the above code for verification.