Source: http://publicprobity.com/right-to-information-issues-of-administrative-efficiency-public-accountability-and-constitutional-governance-by-y-k-sabharwal-former-chief-justice-of-india/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:42:31+00:00

Document:
First it will be necessary to notice the important provisions of the Act which may come up for consideration before the courts or under which information may be called.
The preamble to the Act says that the Act has been enacted for establishing “the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. It further points out that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparence in information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The preamble, however, also refers to the exemptions and says that, in some cases, revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited physical resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The Act proposes to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic idea.
Sec. 18 deals with powers and functions of the Information Commissions.
Sec. 20 provides penalties for non-furnishing information as required by the Act in a sum of Rs.250/- per day.
Sec. 21 states that no suit or prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the Act or rules.
Sec. 22 overrides the Official Secrets Act, 1923 or any other law for the time being in force insofar as they are inconsistent with the Act.
Sec. 23 bars all courts from entertaining any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under the Act and every order under the Act should be first appealed against.
In Bennett Coleman, the right to information was held to be included within the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a).
In S.P. Gupta, the right of the people to know about every public act, and the details of every public transaction undertaken by public functionaries was described.
In Cricket Association of Bengal, the right to impart and receive information from electronic media was included in the freedom of speech. The airwaves were held to be public property and hence distribution of these waves between government and private channels was to be done on an equitable basis.
In P.U.C.L., the right to information was further elevated to the status of a human right, necessary for making governance transparent and accountable. It was also emphasized that governance must be participatory.
As can be seen, the above judgments cut across freedom of the individual, privacy, freedom of the press, duties of Governments, duties of public authorities, right to seek disclosure of information about candidates contesting in elections and so on and so forth and also to the exceptions contained in Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.
No doubt, at the moment, we have the media, we have the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General and we have the Opposition in the legislature and the Judiciary and Public Interest Litigation, which can seek and publish information. They are important organs that check the government. They are all concerned with obtaining information from Government. But the new Act proposes to empower the citizen directly with a right to information to make the State and the public sector more accountable. The provisions of the new Act will also benefit the aforementioned functionaries.
The private sector, by definition is not publicly accountable, but so far as the Government and public sector are concerned, they are publicly accountable. The transition from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ defuses the responsibility and hence the need for public accountability.
One of the methods of measuring public accountability is to evolve a cost benefit analysis of the actions of Government and also of the public sector. An important mechanism to conduct such cost benefit analysis is a mechanism which can compel the Government and the public sector to reveal facts to the public. Without information, there cannot be a test of “value for money”.
The right to information is necessary to promote a culture of accountability and to expose corruption and malpractice. Accessibility of information and release of facts pertaining to finance, proceedings and decisions of all the social actors whose activities have an impact on the public, is the guarantee that such actors will be accountable and will fulfill their mandates. Accountability targets mismanagement, abuse of discretion, bribery, other forms of corruption and malpractices. Sometimes media reveals a fraud and describes it as a tip of the iceberg. Therefore, more facts are necessary to discover the whole picture of the fraud, and it is only when all the information is revealed that the total damage to public monies can be evaluated and the persons made accountable.
The Law Commission had suggested in its 166th Report on “The Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill, 1999”, that a law be made for confiscation of property acquired by corruption. It is not merely sufficient to remove a corrupt official from his office or to imprison him. The fruits of his corruption must be confiscated to the State. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 provides for confiscation of property held benami in the name of other persons but the Act says that the appropriate procedure must be made under the rules. The Law Commission has pointed out repeatedly that rules have not been made since 1988 and that rules must be made to make the provision effective. The same view was expressed by the Commission for Review of the Constitution. Unfortunately, neither a law for confiscation of property acquired by corrupt means has been made, nor steps have been taken to make the rules under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988, during all these years.
The Law Commission has also given a Report (Report No.179) (2001) on the Whistle Blowers Law which is called Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Act. This Report has not been translated into law by Parliament. However, in the case relating to Mr. Dubey who was killed in Bihar for bringing corruption to the notice of the Government, – Government has, at the instance of the Supreme Court, come forward with a notification under which they have designated the Vigilance Commissioner as the authority to receive complaints about corruption and mismanagement in Government. The Vigilance Commission has issued Circulars which are available on its website stating the manner in which complaints can be made to the Vigilance Commissioner confidentially and as to how the name of the complainant will be kept secret and how the complainant will be protected from harm or victimization. On account of lack of sufficient publicity in this behalf, the number of complaints filed confidentially before the Vigilance Commissioner is almost negligible. The proper thing for any good Government will be to enact the Whistle Blower Law on the basis of the draft Bill provided by the Law Commission.
Such laws as mentioned above coupled with the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act will go a long way in ensuring that the Government and public sector operate without the malaises of mismanagement, inefficiency or bribery.
The basic premise behind the right to information is that, since Government is ‘for the people’; it should be open and accountable and should have nothing to conceal from the people it purports to represent. In a responsible Government like ours where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there could be no secrets. The right to know, though not absolute, makes citizens wary when secrecy is claimed for common routine business of administration. Such secrecy is hardly desirable. Information is an antidote to corruption, it limits abuse of discretion, protects civil liberties, it provides consumer information, it provides people’s participation and brings awareness of laws and policies and is the elixir of the media.
According to a paper prepared by the Human Rights Initiative, good governance has eight major facets. It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It is assessed that if corruption is minimized, the views of the minorities and vulnerable members of society are heard, that promotes governance. Good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in its totality. However, to ensure sustainable human development, action must be taken to work towards this ideal. The right to information is one of the methods by which success may be achieved in good governance.
I am sure that in this colloquium, these and all other aspects relating to the new statutory right to information will be discussed and assimilated. I wish the discussions all success.
Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 60.
 State of UP v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428.
 Secy., Ministry of I&B, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161.
 People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI, 2004 (2) SCC 476.
 See Importance of Human Right to Information – A Key to Good Governance by Ms. Prabha, S.D. College, Muzaffarnagar, UP, contained in chapter 27 of the book, Good Governance in India, edited by C.P. Barthwal.

References: Art. 19
 Art. 19
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.