Introduction

There are two main ways by which information held by public bodies can be accessed by the
public. The first is when individual members of the public file requests for and receive
information (reactive disclosure). The second is when information is made public at the
initiative of the public body, without a request being filed. This is known as proactive
disclosure and the result is proactive transparency which can be achieved using a multiplicity
of means ranging from publications and official gazettes, to publicly accessible notice boards,
to radio and television announcements, to posting on the Internet via a public institution’s
website. This means that everyone has equal opportunity to know about upcoming tenders and
contracts which have been awarded or going to be awarded. Such measures are needed to
overcome traditions of keeping business-related information secret even where the so-called
business secrecy related to the spending of the tax payers money as part of public-private-
partnership (PPP) and service contracts. Proactive disclosure or suo motu disclosure is also
called as active disclosure in USA.

This practice goes to remove the tradition of keeping business related information secret. This
is the Public accountability to disclose the spending of the tax payer’s money in every form of
business even in the case of PPP and service contracts

Under Section 4 of the transparency legislation, every government department has to

voluntarily disclose information through annual reports and websites, which include directory
of its officers, their remuneration, functions, list of beneficiaries of government schemes,
minutes of board meetings and other updated information. The right to information is a unique
human right and is a potent tool in the hands of the general public who can use it to keep a
check on the bodies that govern them. Information is a power which provides us the knowledge
to demand political, economic and social rights from our government.

This project an attempt has been made to deal with The Benefits of Proactive Disclosure,
Standard-setting on Proactive Disclosure, Proactive Transparency and the Rule of Law,
Proactive Transparency and Accountability, Proactive Transparency and Participation,
Proactive Transparency, Government Services and e-Government etc.
CONCEPT OF SUO MOTO UNDER RTI ACT

The concept of suo moto disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act is to place large amount
of information in public domain on a proactive basis to make the functioning of the public
authorities more transparent and also to reduce the need for filing individual RTI applications.

Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information
suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including
the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act 2005.

Suo moto disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 orders the public authority to publish
information at regular intervals through various means of communication, including internet,
so that the public have minimum resort to use the Act to obtain information. The provision lays
down the following items for the public authorities to proactively disclose1

(a) Information related to procurement: Information relating to procurement made by

Public Authorities including publication of notice/tender enquiries, corrigenda thereon,
and details of bid awards detailing the name of the supplier of goods/services being
procured or the works contracts entered or any such combination of these and the rate
and total amount at which such procurement or works contract is to be done should be
disclosed.
(b) Public Private Partnerships: If public services are proposed to be provided through a
public private partnership (PPP), all information relating to PPPs must be disclosed in
public domain by public authority entering into PPP contract/ concession agreement.
(c) Transfer Policy and Transfer Orders: Transfer policy for different grades/cadres of
employees serving in Public Authority should be proactively disclosed. All transfer
orders should be publicized through the website or in any other manner listed in Section
4(4) of the Act.
(d) RTI Applications: All Public Authorities shall proactively disclose RTI applications
and appeals received and their responses, on the websites maintained by Public
Authorities with search facility based on key words.
(e) CAG & PAC paras: Public Authorities may proactively disclose the CAG & PAC paras and the
Action Taken Reports (ATRs) only after these have been laid on the table of both the houses
of the Parliament.

1
Office Memorandum; Duo Moto Disclosure; No.1/6/2011-IR Government of India Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training; (Last Updated on April 13, 2016)
 (f) Citizen Charter: Citizens Charter prepared by the Ministry/Department, as part of the
Result Framework Document of the department/organization should be proactively
disclosed
(g) Discretionary and Non- Discretionary Grants: All discretionary /nondiscretionary
grants/ allocations to state governments/ NGOs/ Other institutions by
Ministry/Department should be placed on the website of the Ministry/Department
concerned.
(h) foreign Tours of Pm/ Ministers: Information to be disclosed proactively may contain
nature of the official tour, places visited, the period, number of people included in the
official delegation and total cost of such travel undertaken. Exemptions under Section
8 of the RTI Act, 2005 may be kept in view while disclosing the information.

These instructions would not apply to security and intelligence organisations under the second
schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and CVOs of public authorities.

These instructions would not apply to security and intelligence organisations under the
second schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and CVOs of public authorities.

All this was supposed to be done within 120 days of the enactment of the RTI act in 2005 and regularly
updated.

Public authority under RTI Act, 2005

Section 2(h)(d) states that ‗public authority‘ means any authority, body or institution of self-
government established or constituted by the notification issued or order made by the
appropriate Government, and includes anybody owned, controlled or substantially financed; or
a Non-Governmental Organization (“NGO”) substantially financed, directly or indirectly by
funds provided by the appropriate government.

A plain reading of this provision brings forth many issues. First, are authorities not established
or constituted by notification to be included within the ambit of the term ‘public authority‘?
Secondly, what is the scope of ‘indirect funding ‘by the government? With regards to the
interpretational issues that surround this section, the author merely mentions that “clause (ii)
has been interpreted to include private non-governmental bodies that are substantially
financed.” This explanation is plainly insufficient, specifically after considering the volume of
judicial dicta dedicated to this section. The CIC‘s orders over a long period of time have
essentially used three main factors in judging whether an NGO is a ‘public authority‘: the
nature of function and whether the same qualifies to be a ‘public function‘, the funding given
by the Government and whether the same amounts to ‘substantial funding‘, and lastly, the
nature of the organization itself. However, these three factors have not proved enough to guide
reasoned decisions on the scope of the term. Indeed, most judgments of the CIC amount to a
pragmatic calculation of ‘public interest‘ which lies in the favour of the citizen with a thread-
bare analysis on the three factors outlined above. For instance, In MP Verghese, the Court held
that a private-aided University was controlled by the government since it had to abide by the
Kerala University Act, 1974. Therefore, rather than meaning influence over decision making
processes, ‘control‘ has been interpreted to be synonymous with statutory compliance.
Similarly an industry which complies with all the environmental regulations should be
considered a ‘public authority‘. Such a conclusion would be patently absurd. It is, thus, perhaps
that it has been held that a mere notification under the Co-operative Societies Act does not
render a body a ‘public authority‘. These doctrinal tensions best displayed themselves when
the CIC recently found itself in the midest of a politically charged litigation where the petitioner
had requested for receipts, payments and manifesto promises of all national parties. The
Commission finally based its opinion on the fact that land given at concessional rates and
exemption from taxation amounted to substantial funding, performance of a public duty and
constitutional/legal provisions vesting political parties with rights and liabilities, Of these, the
last element is the most dubious while substantial funding has a clear textual basis, and the
public function test derives itself from the fact that an authority must be ‘public‘ to be a ‘public
authority‘, it is tough to fathom where this third consideration draws its basis from. It would
have been an altogether different scenario where the statutes or constitution established
political parties, but they merely give recognition. Therefore, the latest order only complicates
matters. The questions regarding the relation within these three elements and whether they are
disjunctive or conjunctive are yet to be answered.2

2
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON ITS ENFORCEMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS WITH
SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PRO-ACTIVE INFORMATION By Dr Avinash Kumar Research Scholar P.G department of
Law Patna University Chapter 05 page No. 155
The Benefits of Proactive Disclosure

For public authorities, numerous benefits accrue from taking the initiative to publish the
information they hold. Proactive disclosure ensures that members of the public are informed
about the laws and decisions that affect them and contributes to the rule of law. It facilitates
more accountable spending of public funds and promotes integrity in government. Disclosure
of data and policy documents ensures that the public has the information needed to participate
in policy- and decision-making. Dissemination by public bodies of information about how they
function helps the public access government services. These benefits are among the main
drivers of increased proactive disclosure in recent years. The rise of the Internet has furthered
transparency by making large-scale publication of government data possible at low cost.3

From the perspective of members of the public, the automatic availability of information
ensures timely access to information and helps to ensure that there is equality of access for all
members of society without the need to file requests. A significant advantage of proactive
disclosure, particularly when this becomes automatic and close to real-time, is that it becomes
harder for public officials to subsequently deny the existence of, or to manipulate, the
information4

Thus, Proactive disclosure is going to be beneficial for the public as well as for the public
authority both. It goes to save time, energy & cost and improves efficiency of the Organization
by ensuring more transparency , honesty, commitments, accountability and devotion on the
part of public authority.

There are following benefits of proactive discloser of information

(a) Promotes the rule of Law: The need to inform the public about legislation, policies
and decisions so that they can be obeyed and enforced still underpins much proactive
disclosure by government. The principle of the rule of law requires that laws be
known5Hence, legal regulations can only enter into force once published in an official
journal, and administrative decisions are only applicable once received by those

3
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/213798-1259011531325/6598384-
1268250334206/Darbishire_Proactive_Transparency.pdf last Accessed on 20th March 2019
4
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON ITS ENFORCEMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS WITH
SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PRO-ACTIVE INFORMATION By Dr Avinash Kumar Research Scholar P.G department of
Law Patna University Chapter 05 page No. 156
5
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=CELEX:62006J0345:EN:HTML, last accessed on 20th
march 2019
 concerned6. From a human rights perspective, a law must be published in a way that
facilitates public knowledge: the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse also
places responsibilities on government to disseminate the law. Promoting public
knowledge of laws and policies and informing citizens of their rights was historically
at the origin of proactive transparency.

(b) It promotes transparency and accountability: Governments need to be accountable

for their actions and spending. Allowing access to this information puts a government
under the scrutiny of the people and reduces corruption. Decisions are far more likely
to be objective rather than for the benefit of specific interest groups. Transparency not
only creates checks on what is spent and where, but it can also generate competition
around procurement and makes for more efficient spending of public resources.

(c) Ensures wider Participation in democracy: Freedom of information fosters

participation in the democratic system. Giving the public access to information about
decisions, activities and policies is a substantial step towards empowering them to take
part in political dialogue and decision-making processes.

(d) Trust in Government: Disclosing information to the public signifies a ‘nothing to hide
attitude’ on the part of government. Being able to access this information significantly
reduces suspicion and generates trust in government. In countries moving from
repressive regimes to democracies, opening information up also creates an obvious and
necessary break from the past.

(e) Making government work well: The process of organising information and making it
accessible actually assists in general information management as it requires good
internal information systems. In a secretive government, public officials have little idea
about what information the administration holds, and this increases the transaction costs
of government business. An effective information system means that governments have
a better handle on the information that they possess. Policies and decisions are more
informed therefore and suited to the population‘s needs.

6
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, European Principles for Public Administration,
OECD and the European Union, 1999, Sigma Papers: No. 27, Paris, page 12,
http://www.sigmaweb.org/dataoecd/ 26/30/36972467.pdf, last accessed 20th March 2019
 (f) Access to services: Governments are better able to inform citizens about the services
that they are providing so that citizens know what these services are and how to access
them. This not only benefits individual citizens, but is also a way for government to
display the tangible steps it is taking for its constituents, and this is evidence of positive
change for voters.

(g) Limiting Corruption: Publishing information about the actions of the government and
keeping public officials under the constant watch of the public, allowing them to track
what resources are spent, what contracts are awarded to and so on. Suck disclosure of
information forces governments to be more accountable and less corrupt.10 Publishing
information around procurement also increases efficiency in spending because
openness around contracts and prices can generate competition.

(h) Security: Publishing information also protects the security of individuals within
society. Requesting information for some individuals can sometimes be dangerous,
particularly if it threatens powerful interest groups.

At least four groups of civil society activism on proactive disclosure can be identified7

(1) National level, sectoral campaigns: For example around the rural land rights
movement in India, agricultural subsidies in Mexico, or activism to promote citizen
participation in budget processes in Brazil and Peru.
(2) National/international access to information campaigns: The movements to
promote the inclusion of proactive disclosure provisions in the access to information
laws of India and Mexico studied in this paper; the campaign for stronger proactive
disclosure provisions in the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official
Documents.
(3) Sectoral/regional campaigns: The access to environmental information movement
(resulting in the Aarhus Convention); campaigns for openness to combat corruption
(leading to, inter alia, the UN Convention against Corruption); transparency around
natural resource extraction (the Publish What You Pay campaign, leading to the
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative); and the aid transparency movement

7
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/213798-1259011531325/6598384-
1268250334206/Darbishire_Proactive_Transparency.pdf last Accessed on 20th March 2019
 (where organizations such as Publish What You Fund and aid info are working to
include proactive publication standards into the International Aid Transparency
Initiative).
(4) Supranational initiatives: The efforts to promote transparency of international
financial institutions lead by the Global Transparency Initiative coalition, and the work
of the One World Trust in evaluating accountability of intergovernmental bodies (along
with multinational corporations and international non-governmental organizations).

Status of Implementation8

In the current scheme of the RTI Act, Section 4 obligations are made applicable to public
authority as an institution. There is no provision to fix responsibility on any officer at the level
of public authority in case of non-compliance. In the case, Delhi Development Authority vs.
Central Information Commission & Others9

Court observed:

“Section 4 merely sets out the obligations of the public authorities. It doesn’t provide the
machinery to enforce the implementation of these obligations.”

10 years on, there has been very little progress on the proactive disclosure front. So much
so, that even the Prime Minister’s Office has not published the proactive disclosures under
Section 4. The Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), which is the nodal ministry for
implementation of the RTI act, has been issuing guidelines after guidelines, but without much
avail.

DoPT recently issued a circular referring to the 76th Report of the Department Related
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice’s
recommendation regarding suo-motu disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI act.

8
Rajasthan High Court directs Proactive Disclosure of all the rules, after it could not find a copy of Rajasthan
Evaluation Service Rules; Factly: Making Public Data Meaningful; (Last updated on September 22, 2015);
https://factly.in/rajasthan-high-court-directs-proactive-disclose-all-the-rules-after-it-could-not-find-a-copy-
ofrajasthan-evaluation-service-rules last accessed on 21th march 2019
9
W.P No. 12714/2009 Delhi High Court
The Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) came up with an office memorandum (15
April, 2013) emphasizing the need to set up a “compliance mechanism to ensure that
requirements under section 4 of the RTI Act are met”. It was directed that “each Central
Ministry/ Public Authority should appoint a senior officer not below the rank of a Joint
Secretary and not below rank of Additional HOD in case of attached offices for ensuring
compliance with the proactive disclosure guidelines”. Thus, the functions and responsibilities
of the “nodal officer” created by DoPT are more or less similar to those of a “transparency
officer “envisioned by CIC earlier through its directive (dt. 5th November, 2010). Another
significant direction in the DoPT memorandum was that each public authority should get its
proactive disclosure package audited annually by a third party like consultants etc.
Unsurprisingly, there is no compliance of this order by public authorities. Not many know
about the designation, role and responsibilities of a nodal officer envisaged in the said
memorandum of DoPT. Citing non-compliance of its memorandum dated 15, April 2013,
DoPT issued another reminder dated 22nd September 2014 exhorting once again, all public
authorities to get their proactive disclosure package audited by a third party10

Exemption:

Certain types of information may be subject to secrecy or confidentiality requirements in

another Act. Including such information in a publication scheme may be an offence under the
other Act.11

However, even after more than nine years since the enactment of the RTI Act, there are several
examples of public authorities that have not published even the basic information expressly
specified in Section 4(1) (b), leave alone disclosing any additional information suo moto.

10
Supra note 1
11
Proactive Disclosure and Publication Schemes; Office of Information Commissioner;
https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/guidelines/for-government/access-and-amendment/proactive-
disclosure/proactivedisclosure-and-publication-schemes last accessed on 21th march 2019
International standard Setting on Proactive Disclosure

Many texts adopted by international bodies refer to “transparency” as a positive feature of

good, democratic administration, In addition, a number of international human rights bodies
have recently made specific recommendations on proactive disclosure. These
recommendations are “soft law,” which means that they are interpretations of international and
constitutional guarantees;12 by developing and explaining these standards, they point to good
practices that governments are encouraged to adopt and implement.

At the European level, the Special Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organisation
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has noted that there is currently a “Copernican
revolution” taking place in the development of the public’s right to know. Proactive disclosure
is posited as an integral part of that shift to a new paradigm for government transparency. The
Special Representative recommends:

“Government bodies should be required by law affirmatively to publish information

about their structures, personnel, activities, rules, guidance, decisions, procurement,
and other information of public interest on a regular basis in formats including the use
of ICTs and in public reading rooms or libraries to ensure easy and widespread
access13”

Proactive Disclosure in International Treaties

At present, the strongest general provision in international law that refers directly to proactive
disclosure is contained in the world’s first binding treaty on access to information, the Council
of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents, adopted on 18 June 2009. Article 10
requires that:

“At its own initiative and where appropriate, a public authority shall take the necessary
measures to make public official documents which it holds in the interest of promoting

12
“Soft law consists of rules issued by law-making bodies that do not comply with procedural formalities
necessary to give the rules legal status yet nonetheless may influence the behavior of other law-making bodies
and of the public.” Jacob E. Gersen and Eric A. Posner, Soft Law, University of Chicago, Public Law and Legal
Theory Working Paper No. 213. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1113537, last accessed 28 March
2019
13
, http://www.osce. org/documents/rfm/2007/05/24250_en.pdf last accessed on 29th march 2019
 the transparency and efficiency of public administration and to encourage informed
participation by the public in matters of general interest14”

Guiding Principles for Proactive disclosure

There are following Guiding Principles for Proactive disclosure

(1) Freedom of information legislation should be guided by the principle of maximum

disclosure.
(2) Public bodies should be under an obligation to publish key information
(3) Public bodies must actively promote open government
(4) Exceptions to the right to access information should be clearly and narrowly drawn
and subject to strict harm‟ and “public interest‟ tests.
(5) Requests for information should be processed rapidly and fairly and an independent
review of any refusals should be available
(6) Individuals should not be deterred from making requests for information by excessive
costs
(7) Meetings of public bodies should be open to the public
(8) Laws which are inconsistent with the principle of maximum disclosure should be
amended or repealed
(9) Individuals who release information on wrongdoing “whistle-blowers” must be
protected

Relationship of Proactive Information with Public Interest and Greater

Public Interest

The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not define ‘public interest ‘No other Freedom of
Information Law in the world does it. Non-disclosure of information under qualified
exemptions requires application of the public interest test. Something in the public interest is
simply something which serves the interests of public. However, it may not be that simple in
practice. The Indian Right to Information Act is yet to take-off. However the Central
Information Commission of India has given many Decisions on Public Interest, which are
annexed at the end. The Supreme Court of India issued many guidelines(1998) describing the

14
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/ EN/Treaties/Html/205.htm, last Accessed on 29th March 2019
public interest , to be followed for entertaining letters or petitions received in the court as public
interest litigation and suggested that the following issues are regarded to be something in public
interest:

 Bonded labour maters

 Neglected children
 Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and
complaints of violation of labour laws (except individual case)
 Petitions from jails complaining of harassment for premature release and seeking
release after having completed 14 years in jail, death in jail, transfer, release on personal
bond, speedy trial as a fundamental right
 Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death
in police custody
 Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride-burning,
kidnapping etc.
 Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by villagers or by police
from persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and economically
backward classes
 Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance,
drugs, food, adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and
wildlife and other matters of public importance
 Petitions from riot-victims
 Family pension

And the following issues are not considered to be in public interest:

 Landlord-tenant matters
 Service matters and those pertaining to pension and gratuity
 Complaints against Central/State Government Departments and local bodies except
those relating to item Nos.(1) to (10)
 Admission to medical and other educational institutions.

The Supreme Court of India in Janata Dal v .V.H.S. Chowdhary15 observed that the purpose of
the public interest is – “To wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation

15
AIR 1993 SC 892
of their fundamental rights, but not for personal gain or private profit of political motive or any
oblique consideration."

In S.P.Gupta v President of India16, Justice Bhagawati said: Redressing public injury, enforcing
public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests are vindicating public
interest…enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the
community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected.

State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others,17 Supreme Court held “the
interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide import covering public order, public
health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned
in Part IV of the Constitution (i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy)”

Section 8(2) of the RTI Act makes all of the exemptions contained in section 8(1) of the Act
subject to a “Public Interest Override‖. However, the term “public interest‘ is not defined
anywhere in the RTI Act which provides discretion to Administration about the extent of
disclosing or withholding the information by keeping in view greater public interest
considerations but there should be a balance in public interest as disclosed or not disclosed
which is obvious from the Figure/Graph no 1.1

16
AIR 1982 SC 149
17
AIR 2006
 BALANCING THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Fig No. 1.1

Thus, by keeping in view the public interest and grater public interest it has been observed from
the study that List of exemptions under sec.8 (i) should be concise and interpretation of
Comparative Public interest should be extended .Indian officials are working arbitrarily in the
light of public interest .They also failed to check the public interest test and greater public
interest. It is obvious as shown from the table. For more participation in democracy and
implementation of proactive disclosure, it is necessary that List of exemptions under sec. 8
should be limited.
CASE LAWS:

Following are the landmark judgements embracing the need of suo moto provision under
Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Union of India vs. Vansh Sharad Gupta18

Held: The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment has upheld an order of the Central
Information Commission (CIC) directing the Legislative Department, Government of India to
upload on the official website all laws enacted by Parliament as amended from time to time. It
has also upheld the CIC's direction to the Government to examine that the functionality of the
official email addresses of officers of the Department.19

Background of the RTI Intervention: The Respondent was a law student at the National Law
School of India, University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, who could not find the complete version of
a law passed by Parliament with all the latest amendments online, so he submitted an RTI
application to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Legislative Department.
The email bounced back. He does not appear to have received adequate redress from the First
Appellate Authority. So he approached the CIC.

CIC pointed out, disposing the case:

"It is the minimum responsibility of state to provide updated information about amendments,
which will go in long way in helping people. The access to law is not just a requirement of Law
student and law researchers, but a necessity of all citizens. For instance, the Parliament by the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, has amended section 100 of Indian Penal Code, which
provide a right of private defence of body even to the extent of causing death in case of acid
attack. Many men or women are not even aware of self-defence right that they can even kill
assailant if the latter is attacking to kill, rape or throw acid, or cause grievous hurt etc."

The CIC directed the Legislative Department as follows:

The Commission directs the respondent authority, Legislative Department to inform the
complainant and the Commission as to what action has been taken including details of the
programme of updation, the possible date of its completion, expenditure involved, personnel

18
W.P.(C) 4761/2016 & CM Appeals. 19862-19864/2016
19
Uphold Proactive Disclosure of Laws & Amendments: Delhi HC; Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative;
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/blog/uphold-proactive-disclosure-of-laws-amendments-delhi-hc last
accessed on 29th March 2019
employed etc. The Commission also recommends the department to recognise urgency and
significance of the issue expedite the process, allocate more fund to employ more personnel
and complete the process of updation as soon as possible.

The Commission also directs the respondent authority to examine the functionality of the email
ID in view of the Complainant’s claim that most of the email ID have failed. The Legislative
Department also should have perfect RTI filing system and answer mechanism."

The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the directions of the CIC.20

Upholding both CIC directives relating to RTI, The Court said:

“Public can be expected to follow the law only if law is easily accessible ‘at the click of a
button’. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the CIC, the RTI Act itself mandates the Government
to place the texts of enactments in public domain."

Implication:

This landmark judgment is significant for multiple reasons:

(a) It makes it mandatory for the Government of India to publish the amended version of
laws as and when amendments are incorporated. In India this is not common practice
at either the Central or the State level. The CIC's observation that updated versions of
the laws are not always available on government websites is a problem that many
researchers and advocators have experienced in the past. It is very welcome that the
government has now been reminded of its duty to publish laws in their updated form
and not piece meal - main enactment ion one place and later amendments as separate
documents. It is also heartening to note that the CIC has changed its thinking in terms
of access to the text of laws under the RTI Act. Public authorities often treat its websites
as a dumping ground for categories of information instead of creating a sensibly
indexed catalogue for the same in accordance with Section 4(1) (a) of the RTI Act.
(b) Another major problem that plagues access to laws is the non-availability of rules and
regulations made under legislation by the competent authority. While texts of laws
enacted by Parliament are available on official websites, rules and regulations made
under them are not easily available. Perhaps proactive disclosure of rules and

20
Union of India vs. Vansh Sharad Gupta, W.P. © 4761/ 2016 & CM Appls. 19862- 19864/ 2016
 regulations will require another RTI intervention of this kind. The situation with laws
enacted by State legislatures is much worse in many States.
(c) The Delhi High Court's order is a step forward regarding grant of compensation under
the RTI Act. Until this judgment came out the position was that the RTI applicant had
to demonstrate the nature of loss or detriment suffered due to non-provision of access
to information under the law. The short but insightful order of the Delhi High Court
contributes to the expansion of the regime of transparency established by the RTI Act.

Mr. Sanjay Kumarpathak vs Ministry of Human Resource21

Furthermore, on perusal of the website of the Respondent Public Authority it has been observed
that the Respondent Public Authority has not met its obligations under Section 4 of the Right
to Information Act, 2005. As per Section 4 of RTI Act, public authorities were under an
obligation to make certain suo moto disclosures by 13 October 2005. These Disclosures are
mandatory and are crucial to ensure transparency and accountability in institutions. This would
reduce the load of RTI Application being filed with each institution as information would be
freely available to citizens and they would not have to apply for it

1. Manuals under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI act shall be uploaded on the website of the
institute under the link " Right to Information" and a hard copy shall be kept at a suitable
location for perusal by the general public.
2. A sign board of appropriate dimension shall be installed, mentioning the Name(s),
designation(s), contact details including the office address/room number, availability
hours and telephone numbers of the Central Public Information Officer(s), Central
Assistant Public Information Officer(s) and First Appellate Authority, as the case may
be, who have been notified under the RTI act 2005 (in case of a change of PIO or
Appellate Authority, the sign board will be updated within ten days of the said change.)
Information regarding the requisite fees to be paid under various provisions of the RTI
Act 2005, modes of payment and the office where such fee will be accepted.

21
15 March, 2011
 University of Calcutta v. pritam Rooj22

The language in which information should be supplied

The intention of legislature is clear from the unambiguous composition of the language of the
Statute. An information must be given to the citizen in the language which he understands.
Information must be disseminated considering, inter alia, the "local language" of the area.
Where the representation in form of application for seeking information was given before the
public authority, i.e. the petitioner in Hindi and the language used in the State of Uttarakhand
besides Hindi being the official language of the Union as well as of State of Uttarakhand but
the information was not supplied in Hindi, it was held that reading Section 4 of Right to
Information Act and Articles 345, 348, 350 Of Constitution of India and Section 2 of U.P.
Official Languages Act, 1951 together there was clear violation of the relevant provisions of
Right to Information Act as well as Constitution of India by the petitioner as well as the State
Information Commission when the information had not been supplied to the applicant in Hindi,
more particularly when such information was sought in Hindi. It was even more necessary that
the petitioner, the Consumer Commissioner should have translated its order in Hindi and
supplied the copy to the applicant. To say that since the language of the High Court is English,
ipso facto, the language of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission will also be English
is totally misconceived.

S.N Mukharjee v. Union of India23

Reasoned decision

It is well settled that the administrative authorities must give reason of their judgment which
are subject to appeal. Communication of reasons is required where the authorities act in quasi-
judicial capacity24 which has undergone expanded change by the judicial interpretation25 The
Court has the power to summon the record if the reasons are not communicated so that it may
decide the validity of administrative action.26 Right to Information Act specifically states in
Section 4 (I) (d) that the public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-
judicial decisions to the affected persons.

22
AIR 2009 Cal 97 (DB)
23
AIR 1990 SC 1984
24
state of U.P v Ram Naryan Mishara (1997) 4 SSC 7
25
Ridge v Baldwin (1964) SC 40
26
AIR 1970 SC 50
 Khanapuram Gandiah v. The administrative officer Range Reddi District Court27

Public authority not to provide the reasons for the orders and decisions of judicial officers

Sections 8 (1) (b) and 24 of the Act do not provide any exemption to the Judges or judicial
officers from giving the information sought for but Section 4 (1) (d) specifically states that the
public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the
affected persons. The Court cannot introduce an entirely new provision by saying that the
public authority shall also have to give reasons to the affected parties for the decisions taken
on judicial side. The correctness or otherwise of the order or judgment of a judicial officer
cannot be questioned under RTI Act. Even otherwise, under Section of Judicial Officers
Protection Act, no person is liable to be sued in any civil court for any act done or ordered to
be done by him in discharge of his judicial duty.

Kasi Marikkaynr v Haji Kathijo Beevi Trust, Nagapanttnam28

Courts not liable to furnish information

The courts are not liable to furnish information like public bodies but they are expected to
reveal the reasons in the orders which made the court in passing the particular order. In case
reasons are given in the orders by the subordinate courts, it will enable the appellate Court to
appreciate the matter and, resolve the dispute without any difficulty

27
AIR 2009 AP 74 (DB)
28
AIR 2008 Mad 91