Thoughts on the recent interpretation of the RTI Act
It was way back in 1976, the Supreme Court showing tremendous foresight, observed in Raj Narain vs State of UP case, that people cannot speak or express themselves unless they know. Therefore, the Right to Information is embedded in Article 19.
The govt. realizing the importance of Right to Information enacted the Right to Information Act in 2005. A cursory look at the aim and objective of the RTI Act makes it crystal that; the Act is meant to empower citizens by giving them access to information under the control of public authorities. Under this Act, every public body is de-facto covered, unless it is exempted by the virtue of its inclusion in Section 24 of the Act. It is a crucial tool in the hands of the citizenry for countering the abuse of the sheer power in the hands of the people sitting at high tables.
DAV College Trust and Management Society vs Director of Public Instruction
But the recent trend of judicial pronouncements emerges a disturbing picture altogether. In DAV College Trust and Management Society vs Director of Public Instruction, the SC held that Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) “substantially” financed by the government fall within the ambit of the Right to Information Act. The court defined “substantial” as a “large portion”, steering clear of laying down a hard and fast rule, the Court said it does not necessarily have to mean a major portion or more than 50%. Substantial financing can be both direct and indirect. If the government gives land in a city free of cost or on heavy discount to hospitals, educational institutions, or any such body, this in itself could also be substantial financing, the judge explained.
The ambit of the RTI Act has been enhanced to such an extent that it has reached even to the doorstep of the lives of private individuals. The recent orders of the authorities have given a liberal interpretation to Section 8(1)(j); so that spouse’s personal information can be shared on humanitarian grounds.
Juxtaposing the above judgments with the recent orders; the authorities have not considered PM Cares Fund as ‘Public Authority under Section 2(h); in spite of it being funded by several public sector utilities like Indian Railways, among other things.
The words “the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information” of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; seem to have turned the tables and have repurposed the Act to make private entities more transparent.
Conclusion
It is for public authorities to be more transparent and accountable to the governed, and not vice-versa. We are already living in the ‘1984’ World; this simultaneous narrow and liberal interpretation of the Act is working out the only bulwark of the citizenry. Abraham Lincoln said, “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe”. But unfortunately what kind of facts needs to be revealed is for the Indian authorities to decide.
Read more blogs @advocatetanwar.com