Page | 1

DAMODARAM SANJIAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

Right to information regarding judiciary

SUBJECT

Political science

NAME OF THE FACULTY

T.Y.NIRMALA DEVI

Name of the Candidate

T. LAKSHMANA SRAVAN,

Roll No. 2016054

Semester-1
 Page | 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to our lecturer MRS. T.NIRMALA
DEVI Mam whom have given me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the
topic 'RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT REGARDING JUDICIARY, which also helped me
in doing a lot of research and through which WE came to know so many new things.we are
really thankful to her.
 Page | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

INTRODUCTION
PROCEDURE FOR GETTING THE INFORMATION
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
LITERATURE REVIEW
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
BODY OF STUDY

RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND INDIAN JUDICIARY

 Page | 4

INTRODUCTION:

RIGHT TO INFORMATION: IT is an act came into force in 2005 because it saw

enactment of national rights to information law, it is applicable to whole India except Jammu
and Kashmir.

JUDICIARY: The judiciary of India is an independent legal System and it is formed by the
British during their colonial rule in the country, The apex court in the Country is the supreme
court in NEW DELHI, followed by the high courts, district courts, session courts

RIGHT TO INFORMATION is not our fundamental right; It is an act which provides the
information to the people by paying the prescribed fee in the prescribed format.

I WANT TO DISCUSS ON SOME MATTERS RELATED TO RTI ACT

REGARDING JUDICIARY.

1. IS there any case filed related to right to Information and judiciary. (if failed).
2. After delivering of judgment by a judge is it Possible to file a suit under RTI to
know the Information why the judge delivered that Judgment under which law and
section.(on which Basis he delivered)

RESEARCH PROBLEM: RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT REGARDING JUDICIARY

 Page | 5

RESEARCH STUDY/ LITERATURE REVIEW: Right to information is an act of

parliament of India to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for
citizens and replaces the erstwhile freedom of information act, 2002. It came into force in
2005 and it is applicable to whole India except Jammu & Kashmir. We can get any
information with the help of this act except the confidential information related to the country
and the government is required to reply expeditiously with in thirty days.

The judiciary of India is an independent legal System and it is formed by the British during
their colonial rule in the country, The apex court in the Country is the supreme court in
NEW DELHI, followed by the high courts, district courts, session courts.

The Important feature of this Act is that judicial intervention is strictly prohibited. The court
has no power to entertain any suitor application or proceedings in respect of any order made
under this Act. The Act provides for the rule making power both Central and State
governments and such rules that were framed shall be laid before parliament in case of
Central government and State government.

RESEARCH DESIGN/ RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: The method of research which

is followed for the project is doctrinal study.

IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLE: RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT REGARDING

JUDICIARY is a Dependent variable; it depends on the people, who want to know the
information and the way of individual behaviour (I.E thinking).

RESEARCHER QUESTION: weather right to information regarding judiciary is

effectively implemented.

HYPOTHESIS: After referring case laws I came to conclusion how far the implementation
of right to information act regarding judiciary.

COLLECTION OF DATA: researcher uses secondary sources like books, journals, articles
and also web data base for the research.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA: From the below research we can come to an analysis that how
far the right to information act is by the citizens of India With reference to the cases which
are filed regarding right to information regarding judiciary.

INTRODUCTION:
 Page | 6

Right to information act came into force on the 12th October, 2005. Some
provisions have come into force with immediate effect viz. obligations of public authorities,
designation of Public Information Officers and Assistant Public Information Officers and
constitution of Central Information Commission, constitution of State Information
Commission, non-applicability of the Act to Intelligence and Security Organizations and
power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. The Act extends to the whole of
India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Information means any material in any form including records, documents,

memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts,
reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information
relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law
for the time being in force.

It includes the right to

o Inspect works, documents, and records.

o take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records
o Take certified samples of material.
o Obtain information in form of printouts, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video
cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts.

Procedure for seeking information

An application be made in writing or through electronic means in English or

Hindi or in the official language of the area, to the Public Information Officer
(PIO), specifying the particulars of the information sought for. The
application for obtaining information under sub- section (1) of section 6 1, shall
be accompanied by an application fee of rupees ten by way of cash against proper
receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque / Indian Postal Order payable to the
DDO of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy payable at New Delhi.
For providing the information under sub - section (1) of section 7, the fee shall be
charged by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers
cheque / Indian Postal Order payable to the DDO of Ministry of New
and Renewable Energy, at the following rates.

a) rupees two for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied;
1 Right to information act 2005
 Page | 7

ii) Actual charge or cost price of a copy in large size paper;

iii) Actual charge or price for samples or models; and
iv) For inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for each
fifteen minutes (or fraction thereof) thereafter.
For providing the information under sub -section (5) of section 7, the fee shall be
charged by way of cash against proper receipt or by postal order or by
demand draft or Bankers cheque payable to the DDO of Ministry of New
and Renewable Energy, at the following rates:
For information provided in diskette or floppy rupees fifty per diskette or floppy;
and
For information provided in printed form at the price fixed for such publication
or rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication.
The aforesaid indicated application fees are as prescribed by Government. However,
if further fees are required, then the same will be intimated in writing with
details of calculation.
Applicant can seek review of the decision on fees charged by Public information
officer by applying to the Appellate Authority. No fees will be charged from people
living below the poverty line.
If information sought has been supplied by third party or is treated as
confidential by that third party, the Public information officer shall give a written
notice to the third party within 5 days from the receipt of the request and
take its representation into consideration. The third party is given a chance to
make a representation before the Public information officer within 10 days from the
receipt of such notice.
The information shall be provided in 30 days from the date of application or in 48
hours from the information concerning the life and liberty of a person. In case the
application for information is given to Assistant Public Information Officer
Assistant public information officer, 5 days shall be added to the above representation.
If the interest of a third party is involved then time limit will be 40 days (maximum
period plus time given to the third party to make representation). Failure to
provide information within the specified period is deemed refused. No
information shall be provided, if it is covered by exemption from disclosure
and/or if it infringes copy right of any persons other than the state

Relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005:

 Page | 8

As per section 2(f) of the right to information act 2005 information means any material in
any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in
any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a
public authority under any other law for the time being in force.2

PUBLIC AUTHORITY:

As per section 2(h) of the right to information act public authority means any authority or
body or institution of self-government established or constituted

(a) By or under the Constitution;

(b) By any other law made by Parliament;

(c) By any other law made by State Legislature;

(d) By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any

(i) Body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) Non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds

provided by the appropriate Government;

Exemption from disclosure of information:

(a) Disclosed information which would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or
lead to incitement of an offence.

(b) Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or
tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

(c) Disclosed information which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State
Legislature

(d) Information which contains commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property,
the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the

2 Right to information act 2005.

 Page | 9

competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information;

(e) Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information;

(f) Information received in confidence from foreign Government;

(g) Disclosed information of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person
or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or
security purposes;

(h) Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or

prosecution of offer.

(i) Cabinet papers including records of the decisions taken by the Council of Ministers,
Secretaries and other officers.

Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the
material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the
decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section
shall not be disclosed:

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of
the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature
shall not be denied to any person.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the
exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow
 P a g e | 10

access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected
interests.

(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information
relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened
twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6 shall be provided
to any person making a request under that section:

Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty
years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to
the usual appeals provided for in this Act.

9. Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases without prejudice to the provisions of
Section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access
would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.

11. Third-party information.(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State

Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record,
or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a
third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five
days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request
and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer,
as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite
the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information
should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking
a decision about disclosure of information:
 P a g e | 11

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure
may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm
or injury to the interests of such third party.

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of
any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date
of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the
proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, the Central Public Information Officer
or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt
of the request under Section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make
representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the
information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third
party.

(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom
the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 19 against the decision.

5) Act not to apply to certain organisations.(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to
the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, of section 24 of
the right to information act, being organisations established by the Central Government or
any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights
violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
 P a g e | 12

Information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the

information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission,
and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided
within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by
including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that
Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the
publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the
case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of
Parliament.

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being
organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to
time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights
violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of
violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the
State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such
information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
Every notification issued shall be laid before the State Legislature.

RELETED CASES
 P a g e | 13

Followings are the cases through which right to know is developed. The landmark case
in freedom of the press in India was

Bennett Coleman and Co (vs) Union of India,

In which the petitioner, a publishing house bringing out one of the dailies challenged in the
governments newsprint policy which put restriction on acquisition, sale and consumption of
newsprint. This was challenged as restricting the petitioners rights to freedom of speech and
expression. The Court struck down the newsprint control order saying that it directly affected
the petitioners right to freely publish and circulate their paper.3 That by freedom of press
meant the right of all citizens to speak, publish and express their views and
Freedom of Speech and expression includes within its compass the right of all
citizens to read and be informed.

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd (vs) Union of India.

The basic purpose of freedom of speech and expression is that all members
should be able to form their beliefs and communicate them freely to others. In sum, the
fundamental principle involved here is the peoples right to know. Another development on
this front was through a subsequent case

Manubhai D Shah (vs) Life Insurance Corporation

In which it was held that if an official media or channel was made available to one party to
express its views or criticism, the same should also be made available to another
contradictory view.

A Supreme Court judgment delivered by MR. Justice Mathew is considered a landmark. In

his judgment in the

State of U.P (vs) Raj Narain case,

3 READER, P.G.DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY, BURLA,

ODISHA, AIR 1973 SC 106.
 P a g e | 14

Justice Mathew rules: In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of
the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of
this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public
way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every
transaction in all its bearing. Their right to know, which is derived from the concept of
freedom of speech , though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary
when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can at any rate have no repercussion on
public security. But the legislative wing of the State did not respond to it by enacting suitable
legislation for protecting the right of the people. It was in 1982 that the right to know
matured to the status of a constitutional right in the celebrated case of

S.P.Gupta (vs)Union of India,

Popularly known as Judges transfer case. Here again the claim for privilege was laid
before the court by the Government of India in respect of the disclosure of certain
documents. The Supreme Court by a generous interpretation of the guarantee of freedom of
speech and expression elevated the right to know and the right to information to the status of
a fundamental right. On the principle that certain unarticulated rights are immanent and
implicit in the enumerated guarantees. The Court declared that the concept of an open
government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit
in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 . The Supreme
Court of India has given in the S .P Gupta case that open Government is the new democratic
culture of an open society towards which every liberal democracy is moving and our country
should be no exception. In a country like India which is committed to socialistic pattern
of society, right to know becomes a necessity for the poor, ignorant and illiterate masses.

Union of India (vs) Association for Democratic Reforms,

That voters right to know the antecedents including criminal past of his
candidate contesting election for Member of Parliament of Member of Legislative Assembly
 P a g e | 15

was fundamental and basic for survival of democracy.4 Holding that democracy cannot
survive without free and fair elections, without free and fairly informed voters the court
said that the voter had the right to get material information with respect to a candidate
contesting election for a post, which was of utmost importance in the democracy, was
implied in the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) .

In the case of

S.K.Kanitkar (vs) B.N.Municipal Council,

The Supreme court said that the petitioner had the right to the inspection of documents and to
the certified copies of building plan of the illegal and unauthorised construction5.

The Apex Court in

Essar Oil Ltd (vs) Halar Utkarsh Samiti.

That there was a strong link between Article 21 and the right to know, particularly where
secret government decisions may affect health, life and livelihood. The case related to the
grant of permission by the State of Gujarat to the appellant to lay the pipelines carrying oil
through the Marine National Park and Sanctuary6. The respondents, by way of Public interest
litigation, had challenged the State decision and contended that government before granting
permission, should have asked for and obtained an environmental impact report from
expert bodies and be satisfied that the damage which might be caused to the environment,
was not irreversible and that the applicant should publish its proposal so that public,
particularly those who were likely to be affected, be made aware of proposed action.

In the case of

Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. (vs) Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers.

4 AIR 2002 SC 2112.

5 AIR 2000 Bom. 453.

6 AIR 2004 SC 1834.

 P a g e | 16

The Court ruled that the citizens, who had been made responsible to protect the environment,
had a right to know the government proposal. 7

In the case of:

Ozair Husain (vs) Union of India

The supreme court said that Right to know, whether food products, cosmetics and drugs are
of non-vegetarian or vegetarian origins, has been held to be a fundamental right 8 forming part
of the right secured under Article 21 read with Articles 19(1).

In this case

D.K.Basu (vs) State of West Bengal

The Supreme Court held that the detainees had right to know the grounds of their arrest
and also right to know that such right exists in them. This expression is preferred over
freedom of information. State should refrain from interfering. The right to Information
has already received judicial recognition as a part of the fundamental right to free
speech and expression. An Act is needed to provide a statutory frame work for this right. This
law will lay down the procedure for translating this right into reality. The Right to
Information Act, 2005, is indeed a path breaking legislation, which can enable achievement
of transparent and accountable governance in true earnest. It is also an instrument to user in
participative governance and help citizens to influence policy formulation and
programme implementation by securing the legally enforceable right to know. In this Age of
Information, its value as a critical factor in socio-cultural, economic and political
development is being increasingly felt. In a fast developing country like India, availability of
information needs to be assured in the fastest and simplest form possible. This is important
because every developmental process depends on the availability of information. Right to
know is also closed linked with other basic rights such as freedom of speech and
expression and right to education. Its independent existence as a attribute of liberty cannot be
disputed. Viewed from this angle , information or knowledge becomes an an

7 AIR 2004 SC 1834.

8 AIR 1989 SC 190.

 P a g e | 17

important resource 9. As equitable access to this resource must be guaranteed . Right to

know, therefore, is the basic and fundamental right of citizens, without which other
rights and citizenship responsibilities cannot be adequately discharged. Hence, exercising
the Right to Know is at least essential first step in strengthening citizen leadership and in
democratizing governance. Knowledge is Power. Empowerment and of the marginalized
and excluded citizens requires knowing and learning. Let us examine some of the provisions
of the RTI Act which is having the better protection of the right of the citizens especially right
which is related to administration as recognised as public right. The shortcomings in the
Act is critically examined through interpretation of the Sections and the aim of the law
maker. At the outset, if the provisions of the Section 3 of the Right to Information Act,
2005,is interpreted elaborately we find that this right is available to all citizens. It does
not make provision for giving information to corporations, associations and companies,
which are legal person but not the citizens. However, if an application is made by an
employee or office bearer of any corporation, association, company, NGO, who is also a
citizen of India, information shall be supplied to his/her full name. It will be presumed that
a citizen has sought information at the address of corporation. It is suggested here that the
word every person should be used instead of citizens,Similarly, Section 2(1) of the right
to Information Act, 2005, defines Public Authority which means any authority or body or
institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution, by any
other law made by Parliament, by any other law made by State Legislature; by
notification issued or order made by the appropriate government and includes anybody
owned, controlled or substantially financed ; non-government organisation substantially
financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government . The very
first doubt, which arises, is whether the definition of public authorities includes the
government departments. The expression public authorities does not tell out clear that all
governmental departments are public authorities and the same has to be inferred from the
language used as one constituted or established under the Constitution or any State law. It is
suggested that the government departments may be specified in the definition at the very
commencement of the definition.

The Important feature of this Act is that judicial intervention is strictly

prohibited. The court has no power to entertain any suitor application or proceedings in
respect of any order made under this Act. The Act provides for the rule making power both
9 AIR 2003 Del. 103.
 P a g e | 18

Central and State governments and such rules that were framed shall be laid before
parliament in case of Central government and State government.

There have been grievances of the applicants that information is not provided them in
their regional language. This is against the stator spirit contained in Section 6 (1) of the Act
which makes it clear that information is to be provided in Hindi and English or in the official
language of the area in which the application is being made. It is suggested here that penalty
must be imposed, who violate the provision of Act. So far as Section 6 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 is concerned, a person can obtain information by accompanying such
fee asmay be prescribed. The provision of taking fees for disclosing the information seems to
be against the spirit of the right and the Act too. It is quite paradoxical that a person has to
pay for availing information which is a fundamental human right, which has been consecrated
even by the Constitution. Being a legislation which is socially oriented, it strikes wrong chord
at this place, by creating a hiatus between people on the economic basis. Information can be
easily accessed by the affluent classes whereas same is not so comfortable for the students
and lower strata of middle class.

According to the Public Records Act, 1993, the government shall maintain
records while classifying them as top secret, confidential and restricted. As there is
no exception in Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Public Information
Officer is competent to decide the large public interest to be served while disseminating the
information that was restricted under different classification. Logical reasons for the rejection
of the requests seeking information are not being provided as required by Section 7 (8)
of the Act. Moreover, exemption clause contained in Section 8 of the Act is being misused
to veil the misdeeds in the name of secrecy essential for national security, integrity etc.
Although the inclusion of a public interest override is a huge step forward, the fact that the
exemptions only contain a low level harm test requiring that relevant interests are only
harmed prejudicially affected could be used to block a lot of applications at the initial stages.
 P a g e | 19

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court said that the information should be provided to the
citizens of India regarding the case details and the judgements delivered in the respective
cases and the court said that the public information officer should not able to provide the
information why the judge gave this type of judgement because the public information officer
do not know the facts of the case and he does not participate in the prosecution just his duty is
to provide the information whatever asked by the appellant. And after doing the research I
came to conclusion that right to information act is not that much effectively implemented
because if the people are not that much aware about the laws and their provisions in India. No
cases were filed regarding the wrong judgemental by the judges.
 P a g e | 20

REFERENCES:

a) Right to information act 2005

b) Indian kanoon.com---- case laws.