Skip to main content

Right to Information

 RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Information broadens our consciousness and eliminates the haziness of our beliefs. The Freedom of Information Bill 2000 was introduced in parliament on July 25, 2000; however, there have been previous instances where a proposal on a similar subject has been moved into the house, dating back to 1966 when the Press Council of India prepared a draught bill in order to secure the right to information, and again in 1997 when the Institute of Rural Development, Hyderabad prepared a bill, both of which had sparked a debate on the subject. The working group's study concluded that the right to information is not only achievable, but also necessary. Because the right to information has already been judicially recognised as a part of the basic right to free speech and expression, the Working Group proposed that the law be renamed the Freedom of Information Bill.

The right of a person to know information about a public act conducted by public authority is not just a legislative right, but also a basic right. It is essential for effective governance because it makes government authorities more open and responsible to the general public.

 

Characteristics of the 2005 Right to Information Act

  • Public agencies are required to give any information requested by a citizen, as well as to distribute the information to the individual who made the request. However, this Act imposes specific requirements in terms of national security, personal information, and other people's information.

  • The authority has a 30-day time restriction for providing information.

  • If the authority refuses to provide any information, the person has the right to appeal to a higher authority. They can then file a second appeal with the "central information commission/state information commission" later.

  • In these situations, local court orders will be ignored.

 

The Act further stated that anybody may submit a written request to a public information officer (PIO) appointed by the authority covered by the Act. It is a legal need to respond to citizen requests. If the officer is not available, the applicant may make a request with the state's "central information commission." It also sets a time restriction so that the procedure may be completed quickly. For various scenarios, different time restrictions are set:

  •  Any PIO who accepts an application is required to respond within 30 days, and any application handed to an assistant PIO must be responded to within 35 days.

  • The application is transferred to another PIO in 30 days, starting or counting from the day it is moved.

  • Any application for information on corruption by any schedule secured agency or any sort of human rights violation that is covered by schedule II of the RTI Act shall be responded to within 45 days with the permission of the central information commission.

  • The PIO is expected to provide information about the person's "right to life and liberty."

The Supreme Court held in Bennett Coleman vs. Union of India[1] that "our basic right to knowledge falls within the ambit of article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The court stated in Express Newspaper Ltd VS. Union of India[2] that the primary goal of the right to freedom of speech and expression is for people to be allowed to create their own opinions and freely transmit them to others.



The right to information is a tool in people' hands to learn about the activities performed by public authorities, the aim of public transactions ostensibly carried out in the name of the public act, and the source of funds used to carry out such tasks. Because it is regarded one of the fundamental rights under the ambit of Article 19(1), the right to information existed prior to the passage of the Right to Information Act, 2005. (a). This right promotes openness and accountability in the performance of public functions. Although the right to information is regarded as a step forward in India, it has a number of flaws that need to be addressed.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of Non-