Right to Information and administrative accountability
Right to Information (RTI)
Right to Information is a fundamental principle that empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities. It promotes transparency and accountability in government operations and helps reduce corruption.
In India, the RTI Act, 2005, provides legal backing to this right.
It obliges public authorities to disclose information proactively or on request, except for certain exempted categories related to security, privacy, and confidentiality.
RTI enables citizens to scrutinize government decisions, expenditure, policies, and functioning, ensuring the government remains answerable to the public.
Administrative Accountability
Administrative Accountability means that government officials and public authorities are answerable for their actions and decisions. It ensures they act within the law, fairly, and responsibly.
Accountability mechanisms include judicial review, parliamentary oversight, auditing agencies, and tools like RTI.
When officials fail to perform their duties properly or act arbitrarily, accountability processes help rectify or punish such actions.
RTI strengthens accountability by providing citizens with information needed to challenge administrative arbitrariness or corruption.
Case Laws on RTI and Administrative Accountability
1. S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) (The Judges’ Transfer Case)
Issue: The transparency and accountability of the judiciary, especially concerning the transfer and appointment of judges.
Held: The Supreme Court held that judicial appointments and transfers are subject to certain conventions and consultation, but not judicially reviewable.
Significance: Though predating the RTI Act, this case emphasized the need for transparency in public functions. Later, RTI demands covered judicial accountability to an extent, but some areas remain exempt.
Takeaway: It set a foundation for debates on how much transparency is needed for administrative decisions, balancing independence and accountability.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975) (The Emergency Case)
Issue: Whether government actions during the Emergency period violated constitutional guarantees.
Held: The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of checks on administrative power.
Significance: Highlighted the dangers of unchecked executive authority, underscoring the need for transparency and accountability.
Relation to RTI: This case indirectly underscored the value of mechanisms like RTI to prevent arbitrary governance by empowering citizens with information.
3. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)
Issue: Whether answer sheets of students can be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Held: The Supreme Court held that answer sheets do not fall under the exemption clauses and are subject to disclosure under RTI.
Significance: This was a landmark decision expanding the scope of RTI to include evaluation transparency.
Takeaway: The case reinforced that citizens have the right to information about their own evaluations, promoting accountability in education administration.
4. Raj Narain v. Union of India (1975)
Issue: Public scrutiny of the government’s actions.
Held: The Court emphasized that the government must be answerable and accountable to the public.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that all public authorities should work transparently and be answerable, which is fundamental to the RTI Act.
Takeaway: The decision laid a foundation for administrative accountability, underlining why citizens must have the right to know government actions.
5. Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2010)
Issue: Whether disclosure of certain information could be refused on the ground of “national security” or “public interest.”
Held: The Supreme Court held that exemptions under RTI must be narrowly interpreted and transparency should be the default rule.
Significance: Strengthened the RTI regime by curbing the arbitrary use of exemption clauses to deny information.
Takeaway: This judgment protects the citizen’s right to information while balancing it with genuine concerns of security, enhancing administrative accountability.
Summary
RTI acts as a powerful tool for administrative accountability by allowing citizens to access government-held information.
Courts have expanded the scope of RTI to ensure transparency in various domains including education, appointments, and governance.
Case laws emphasize a balance between transparency and legitimate confidentiality but prioritize accountability.
Administrative officials are accountable to citizens and must justify their decisions, which RTI facilitates.
RELATED Blog
0 comments