Right to Information Act
Information is an essential part of a human being. The information helps one person to gain knowledge.
Before 2005, the information related to a public authority and the process involved was very difficult.
The process-related to public authority was lengthy and confusing. Every citizen of India should have
the right to information. Right to information is an index to measure the growth and development of a
The right to information act is an act of the parliament of India, this acts talks about procedures and
rules regarding citizens' right to information. This act was replaced by the freedom of information act
2002. This act has citizens are empowered to ask for information from any public authority and get a
reply within 48 hours.
This bill was passed by parliament on 15 June 2005 and it came into force on the 12 th of October 2005.
This act is very important as it is related to article 19 which gives freedom of speech and expression and
article 21 which talks about the right to life and personal liberty. Right to Information codifies a
fundamental right of the citizens of India RTI has been proven to be very useful but is counteracted by
the whistleblower protection act 2011.
This act's scope is very wide, it covers the whole of India. This act covers all the constitutional
authorities, including executive, legislature, and judiciary any institution or body established or
constituted by an act of parliament or state legislature. There was an important case named Sarbijit
Roy v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission. In this case, it was held that the central information
commission also reaffirmed that privatized public utility companies fall within the purview of RTI. It was
also witnessed that the central information commission held that the political parties are public
authorities and are answerable to citizens under the RTIact.
Case; UPSC v. Angesh Kumar (2018)
Facts; some students giving the civil service examination 2010, approached the high court to ask for
direction for the union public service commission to disclose the details of the marks awarded to them
in civil services examinations 2010. In this case, information related to the form of cut–off marks for
every subject, model of answers, etc.
Held; the court held that according to section 3 and section 6 on the revelation of information that is
likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the governments or
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentially of sensitive information. The
apex court was directed to disclose the raw marks as well as model answers to the questions in the