ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

INTERNAL BACKLOG ASSIGNMENT

Sudev Singh
B.A. LLB
Division B
17010125169
Q.1 Write a detailed note on the 'Principles of Natural Justice'.

It is difficult to precisely define what is meant by natural justice, the contents of principles of
natural justice are quite easy to enumerate. As it stands today, the basic principles of natural justice
are : (i) that the parties should be heard before deciding an issue; (ii) the hearing must be before an
impartial Judge, as no man can be judge of his own cause. Therefore, the hearing must be before an
unbiased Judge; (iii) the Judge should decide in good faith. He should have no bias, personal or
pecuniary; and (iv) the decision given must be reasoned one and therefore, the decision must be
evidenced by a speaking order which enumerates the reasons for coming to a particular conclusion.
The American Due Process of Law postulates : (a) notice (b) opportunity to be heard; (c) an
impartial tribunal and (d) an orderly course of procedure. The concept of speaking order as a part of
principles of natural justice is a significant and important contribution by Indian jurisprudence. The
three basic accepted principles of natural justice are :—

 that the dispute should be decided by an impartial judge without any bias or interest against
the parties and in the subject-matter of dispute;

 audi alteram partem which means, no man should be condemned unheard. Both parties must
be heard before passing any order;

 that the decisions must be reasoned one and the orders containing the decision must be
speaking orders.

The essential characteristic of ‘Natural Justice’ is put by Romans in two maxims, namely, (1) Nemo
judex in causa sua (No man can be judge in his own cause); (2) Audi alteram partem (No man shall
be condemned unheard). This may be put in two words ‘Impartiality’ and ‘Fairness’. The concept of
‘natural justice’ is comprised of many colours and shades and many forms and shapes, it is easy to
proclaim, but very difficult to define. No doubt, it is true that the concept of natural justice is not
very clear and, therefore, it is not possible to define it; yet the principles of natural justice are
universally accepted and enforced.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India contains a guarantee of equality before the law to all persons
and a protection to them against discrimination by any law. What Article 14 forbids is
discrimination by law, that is, treating persons similarly circumstanced differently or treating those
not similarly circumstanced in the same way, or, as has been pithily put treating equals as un equals
and un equals as equals. Article 14 prohibits hostile classification by law and is directed against
discriminatory class legislation. Arbitrariness can take many forms and shapes but whatever form or
shape it takes, it is nonetheless discrimination. It also became apparent that to treat a person or a
class of persons unfairly would be an arbitrary act amounting to discrimination for- bidden by
Article 14. The Apex Court has recognised that to treat a person in violation of the principles of
natural justice would amount to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment and would violate the
guarantee given by Article 14.

The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognized as being a part of the guarantee
contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by the Supreme Court
to the concept of equality. Violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the
same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article
14 : therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article
14.

The two rules of natural justice, namely, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, have
now a definite meaning and connotation in law and their content and implications are well
understood and firmly established, they are nonetheless not statutory rules. Each of these rules
yields to and changes with the exigencies of different situations. They do not apply in the same
manner to situations which are not alike. These rules are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be
put in a legal strait-jacket. They are not immutable but flexible.
These rules can be adapted and modified by statutes and statutory rules and also by the constitution
of the Tribunal which has to decide a particular matter and the rules by which such Tribunal is
governed.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kraipak vs. Union of India AIR 1970 S.C. 150 observed : "the aim
of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice.
These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do
not supplant the law but supplement it.’ It is true that if a statutory provisions can be read
consistently with the principles of natural justice, the courts should do so because it must be
presumed that the legislatures and the statutory authorities intend to act in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. But if on the other hand a statutory provision either specifically or by
necessary implication excludes the application of any or all the principles of natural justice then the
court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory authority and read into the
concerned provision the principles of natural justice. Whether the exercise of a power conferred
should be made in accordance with any of the principles of natural justice or not depends upon the
express words of the provision conferring the power, the nature of the power conferred, the purpose
for which it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that power".

Provisions statutory and inherent

Over years, invariably in every statute, provision relating to natural justice, by way of affording an
opportunity of being heard, are inserted to save from arbitrariness. The concept of due process of
law is sought to be brought under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 10
of the universal declaration of human rights adopted by the General assembly of United Nations
provide that every one is entitled to full equity to a fair and to the hearing by an independent and
impartial Tribunal in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge
against him. Such principles are statutory in many statutes. However, where there is no specific
provision, it has to be implied and such principles being inherent have to be complied with. Such
principles have to be read in, even though not enacted.

The Supreme Court in celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 Supreme
Court 597 observed that although there are no positive words in the Passport Act, 1967 requiring
the applicant to be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the
legislature. The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned
unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. Natural justice is a great humanising principle
intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the year it has grown into a
widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The inquiry must, always be,
does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person
affected?

It also observed that law must have been be taken to be well settled that even in a administrative
proceeding, which involves Civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be
applicable. It would not be right to conclude that the audi alteram partem rule is excluded merely
because the power to impound a passport might be frustrated, if prior notice and hearing were to be
given to the person concerned before impounding his passport. A fair opportunity of being heard
following immediately upon the order impounding the passport would satisfy the mandate of
natural justice and a provision requiring giving of such opportunity to the person concerned can and
should be read by implication in the Passports Act, 1967. If such a provision were held to be
incorporated in the Passports Act, 1967 by necessary implication, the procedure prescribed by the
Act for impounding a passport would be right, fair and just and it would not suffer from the vice of
arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

The Madras High Court in Vijay Hemant Finance and Estates Ltd. vs. ITO (1999) 238 ITR 282
stated "Unless the provisions of the statute warrant or there is a necessary implication on reading of
the section that the principles of natural justice are excluded, the provisions of the section should be
construed in a manner incorporating the principles of natural justice. Courts should generally read
into the provisions of the relevant sections a requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard before an order is made which could have adverse civil consequences for the parties
affected. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in K. P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the Court can read into the statutory provision a
condition which, though not expressed is implicit as constituting the basic ambition underlying the
statutory provision. The Madras High Court granted an opportunity for rectification for defects in
the declaration to make the provision reasonable and justified and to avoid hardship and unjust
result. It also referred to the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatriya Gopal Sheety
vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 464 where the Hon’ble Bombay high Court was pleased to require to give
an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects in the application filed for renewal of
registration of the firm.

Rule of audi alteram partem

Both parties should be heard before any decision. The right to a fair hearing has been used by the
court as the base on which to build a kind of code for administrative procedure comparable with due
process of law. A proper hearing must always include a fair and adequate opportunity to those who
are parties in the controversy for correcting and contradicting anything prejudicial to their view.
The disclosure of a charge or opposing case must be made and it must be made within reasonable
time to allow the person affected to prepare his defence or his comments. He must have fair notice
of any accusation against him. The principle of audi alteram partem has two aspects (i) notice and
(ii) hearing

(i) Notice
Before any action is taken, the affected party should be given a notice to show cause against the
proposed action and seek his explanation. Any order passed without giving notice is against the
principles of natural justice. Accordingly, even if there is no provision in the statute about giving of
notice, if the order in question adversely affects the rights on an individual, the notice must be
given.

The notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and the charges should not be vague and
uncertain. The object of notice is to give an opportunity to the individual concerned, to present his
case. Moreover, the notice must give a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirements
mentioned thereon. Natural justice, therefore, requires that the person directly affected by the
proposed acts, decisions or proceedings be given adequate notice of what is proposed so that he
may be in a position,

 to make representation on his own behalf, or

 to appear at the hearing or inquiry (if any), and

 effectively to prepare his own case and to answer the case he has to meet.

Accordingly, the notice should be served in sufficient time to enable these representation to be
made effectively. If an oral hearing is to be held, the time and the place must be properly noticed. If
the charges are to be brought, they should be specified with particulars.

(ii) Hearing
The second requirement of audi alteram partem is that the person concerned must be given an
opportunity of being heard before any adverse action is taken against him.

A hearing will normally be an oral hearing. When an oral hearing is given the Tribunal must :—

 Consider all relevant evidence which a party wishes to submit.

 Inform every party of all the evidence to be taken into account, whether derived from
another party or independently.

 Allow witnesses to be questioned.

 Allow comments on evidence and arguments on the whole case. The right to call and to
cross examine witnesses, as a general rule, is part of natural justice.

Wrongful refusal of an adjournment when reasonably requested, may amount to refusal of fair
hearing.

The parties are entitled to copies of statements recorded at its back, copies of reasons required to be
statutorily recorded, copies of all material which has been collected at the back, is being referred
and relied upon and considered, copies of reports if made as a base for making any addition or
allegation as also copies of third party books, own books, records, details etc.

collected to be used in the matter. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Keveyam & Co. vs. G. S.
Gaghel (2000) 119 STC 123 observed that failure to furnish report of Flying Squad as failure of
natural justice. It observed that a person against whom adverse order is to be passed has to be given
full opportunity of defending himself or for the purpose of showing cause or explaining the
situation as to why such adverse orders should not be passed against him.

On providing the copies of statements or the reports, the assessee is entitled to seek right of cross
examination. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff (1977) 39 Sales Tax
Cases 478 observed "One of the rules which constitutes a part of the principles of natural justice is
the rule of audi alteram partem which requires that no man should be condemned unheard. It is
indeed a requirement of the duty to act fairly, which lies on all judicial authorities, and this duty has
been extended also to the authorities holding administrative enquiries involving civil consequences
or affecting rights of parties. This rule which requires an opportunity to be heard to be given to a
person likely to be affected by a decision is also, like the genus of which it is a specie, not an
inflexible rule having a fixed connotation. It has a variable content depending on the nature of the
inquiry, the framework of the law under which it is held, the constitution of the authority holding
the inquiry, the nature and character of the rights affected and the consequences flowing from the
decision. It is, therefore, not possible to say that in every case the rule of audi alteram partem
requires that a particular specified procedure is to be followed. It may be that in a given case the
rule of audi alteram partem may import a requirement that witnesses whom statements are sought to
be relied upon by the authority holding the inquiry should be permitted to be cross examined by the
party affected while in some other case it may not. The procedure required to be adopted for giving
an opportunity to a person to be heard must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. It held that the usual mode recognised by law for proving a fact is by production of
evidence, which includes oral evidence of witnesses, and that would include equally the right to
cross examine witnesses examined by the authorities. The Supreme Court in Kishan Chand
Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 held that the evidence to be used against the assessee must
be provide to the assessee and an opportunity to confront should have been given to an assessee and
that the letter could not be used without providing its copy as also permitting to cross examine the
Bank Manager.

Oral hearing
Oral hearing is very much essential, apart from written submissions in response to show cause
notice. Expression "may allow a reasonable opportunity of being heard" includes right for oral
personal hearing. Unless and until, the assessee declines to avail of the right of personal hearing, his
right of oral hearing cannot be stalled.

The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in Vinayaga Spinning Mills vs. CTO (2000) 118 STC
504 while construing the aforesaid expression stated that it costs a duty to give a personal hearing
where asked for, or not." The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shri Venkataraman Manure Co. vs.
Dy. Commissioner (1978) 42 STC 189 observed that giving personal hearing is not necessarily an
ingredient of the principles of natural justice but it does not mean that no personal hearing should be
given at all. In cases, the assessee asks for personal hearing the authority may give it. The Hon’ble
Court held that the Dy. Commissioner should have given a personal hearing to the assessee even
though the assessee did not asked for it. It drew support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Mineral Development Ltd. vs. State of Kerala AIR 1960, Supreme Court 488; Kapoor Singh vs.
Union of India, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 493 and M. P. Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India AIR 1966
Supreme Court 671 where it has been held by the Supreme Court 671 where it has been held by the
Supreme Court that first, giving personal hearing is not necessarily an ingredient of the principles of
natural justice and secondly, where a personal hearing should be given or not should be decided on
the facts of each case.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Acme Fabric Plast Co. vs. ITO (1997) 225 ITR 826 held that
even though the petitioner had taken precautions to file written submissions this was not enough to
assume that oral hearing is not required to be given and this has definitely prejudiced the case of the
petitioner. It also stated that non grant of oral hearing cannot be cured by affording hearing at
appeal stage as held in Ram Chandran vs. Union of India AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1173 at 1182 :
— "In principle, there ought to be an observance of natural justice called equally at both stages. If
natural justice is violated at the first stage, the right of appeal is not so much a true right of appeal as
a corrected initial hearing, instead of fair trial followed by appeal, the procedure is reduced to unfair
trial followed by fair trial."
 Conclusion

Principles of natural justice are soul of an administration of justice and need to be adhered to in
order to make the order as a just and fair order. Above stated principles are well settled and need to
be complied by all Courts, authorities and Tribunals while dispensation of justice. It is a duty and
obligation and its violation is infringement of fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution of
India and shall also make mockery of law, which is impermissible in democracy.

There is a good deal of misconception on the question of the right of cross-examination as part of
natural justice. Natural justice is fast becoming the most unnatural and artificial justice and for this
confusion the courts are no less responsible than the litigants. Ordinarily, the principle of natural
justice is that:

(i) No man shall be a judge in his own cause and

(ii) No man shall be condemned unheard.

This latter doctrine is known as audi alteram partem. It is on this principle that natural justice
ensures that both sides should be heard fairly and reasonably.

A part of this principle is that if any reliance is placed on evidence or record against a person then
that evidence or record must be placed before him for his information, comment and criticism. This
is all that is meant by the doctrine of audi alteram partem (no party should be condemned unheard).

Q.2 Write notes on the following:

a) Lokpal

b) Right to Information
Ans:

a) Lokpal

The word Lokpal means the "protector of the people". Adopting the famous Lincoln phrase, it can
also be seen as a protector "of the people, by the people, for the people". The word 'Ombudsman',
on the other hand, is rooted in the Old Norse language, essentially meaning "representative", which
is an official charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing
complaints reported by individual citizens.

The modern use of word Ombudsman began in Sweden and that stands for "an officer appointed by
the legislature to handle complaints against administrative and judicial action”. Traditionally the
ombudsman is appointed based on unanimity among all political parties supporting the proposal.
The incumbent, though appointed by the legislature, is an independent functionary - independent of
all the three organs of the state, but reports to the legislature. The Ombudsman can act both on the
basis of complaints made by citizens, or suo moto. They can look into allegations of corruption as
well as mal-administration.

1
P.ST.J. Langan, ed., Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statues, p. 1 (12th ed., 1969 ed./2010 reprint,
LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur)
2
Warburton v. Loveland (1832) 2 D. & Cl. 480, per Tindal C.J. at p. 489.
3
Cheney v. Conn [1968] W.L.R. 24
DIFFERENT INDIAN VERSIONS OF OMBUDSMAN

The first Indian version of Ombudsman Bill 1968 was presented by in the fourth Lok Sabha.
Unfortunately, it got lapsed before its being approved by the Rajya Sabha to become law due
to dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The Bill was known as “The Lokpal and Lokyuktas, 1968.It
envisaged a Lokpal to monitor the actions of the Ministers and the Secretaries, and a
Lokayuktas to consider complaints against the actions of administrative cadres below the
rank of Secretary.

Subsequently, 'lokpal bills' were introduced in the years 1971, 1977, 1985, and again in 1989,
1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet they were never passed.

GROWTH OF LOKPAL IN STATES:

Despite the fact that the Lokpal Bill could not be created as a national institution, interest
generated in the concept of Ombudsman throughout the country made its manifestation felt in
the enactment of various State Legislations. Orissa was the first State that enacted legislation
in 1970 on the institution, Lokpal. This was soon followed by Maharashtra in 1971,
Rajasthan and Bihar in 1973, Madhya Pradesh in 1974 and Uttar Pradesh in 1975; Kerala
adopted a policy to institute a Commissioner to expose corruption in 1976, the Jammu and
Kashmir as Prevention of Corruption Statute in 1975, Tamil Nadu as Administrative Criminal
Misconduct in 1974, Karnataka in 1973.

LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS BILL 2011

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 is a proposed anti-corruption bill to provide for the
establishment of a body of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayuktas for States to inquire into
allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.

The subject-matter jurisdiction of the proposed Lokpal is determined by the definition of the
term ‘complaint’ in of the Bill. It is defined as “means a complaint, made in such form as
may be prescribed, alleging that a public servant has committed an offence punishable under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988”. 4
According to the Bill, the Lokpal can investigate any ‘complaints’ under the act.5 The issue
that arises is whether such the definition of complaint is wide enough to would adequately
cover all acts of corruption. For instance, the ‘Jan Lokpal’ Bill recommended that the
definition be expanded to include offences committed under the Foreign Exchange
Management Act (FEMA), 1999 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA),
2002. The reason behind this suggestion was that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(POCA) is possibly too narrow to cover all possible acts associated with corruption.

However the mere addition of offences under FEMA and PMLA may not suffice, since
certain acts of corruption may also be associated with crimes under other legislations such as
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. Hence, ambit of this definition should expand to cover
more corrupt activities within it else the purpose of the whole bill will fail to a great extent.

4
S. 2(e), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011
5
S. 12(1), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011
 b) Right to Information

Since the time of democratic Governments came to function it is the intention of curious
citizens to seek information as to how the administrations, carries on the work of
administration entrusted to them by law. The subjected citizens some times are eager to
know, how taxes paid by them has been utilized by men in power or whether such spending
has gone on sideways (miss- utilized). The curious citizens are also interested to know how
the discretions vested with the administrators are utilized, properly implemented for the
benefit of larger interest of society/community or whether such discretions are got en-cashed
in the process o dispensing of benevolences given by the State. From time to time
mechanisms have been devised to keep checks and balances on administrators, about the
utility of funds ear marked for developmental work. This strict scrutiny of administrative
action is possible only when the opposition party in the Legislature House is strong enough to
expose the misdeeds of the Administrators/Executives. The problem of dissecting the pit-falls
of the Government policies comes only when the opposition may also not morally strong
enough to scrutinize governmental actions or obvious reasons.

At that time the governed/voter/subject requires to know how things are taking shape in
following the policy of the State. In any part of the world and in any forms of
Governments, the persons in power, who are prone to commit misdeeds and who have
committed misdeeds, wants to hide facts from the glare of public view. To cover up such
miss-deeds or misdemeanor the rulers will try not to disclose the true facts to the public. To
overcome this difficulty in securing information from the Governmental machinery
information must be sought from persons who hold such information. In this direction the
main of aim of Right to Information Act is to secure information from authorities for
exposing mis-deeds or to fortifying to criticize anti-people policies with valid points.

To remedy this problem it is only by securing right information by means of questioning so

as to facilitate the public to secure such information on the functioning of Governmental
authorities The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been enacted on 15th June 2005 (Central
Act No.22 of 2005) by the Central Government. It has taken India 82 years to transition from
an opaque system of governance, legitimized by the colonial Official Secrets Act, to one
where citizens can demand the right to information. The recent enactment of the Right to
Information Act 2005 marks a significant shift for Indian democracy, for the greater the
access of citizens to information, the greater will be the responsiveness of government to
community needs.

Right To Information is derived from our fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. If we do not have information on how our
Government and Public Institutions function, we cannot express any informed opinion on it.
Democracy revolves around the basic idea of Citizens being at the center of governance. And
the freedom of the press is an essential element for a democracy to function. It is thus obvious
that the main reason for a free press is to ensure that Citizens are informed. Thus it clearly
flows from this, that the Citizens Right To Know is paramount.

The Act and its rules define a format for requisitioning information, a time period within
which information must be provided, a method of giving the information, some charges for
applying and some exemptions of information which will not be given.

The need for the right to information

In recent years, there has been an almost unstoppable global trend towards recognition of the
right to information by countries, intergovernmental organizations, civil society and the
people. The right to information has been recognized as a fundamental human right, which
upholds the inherent dignity of all human beings. The right to information forms the crucial
underpinning of participatory democracy - it is essential to ensure accountability and good
governance. The greater the access of the citizen to information, the greater the
responsiveness of government to community needs. Alternatively, the more restrictions that
are placed on access, the greater will be the feelings of 'powerlessness' and 'alienation'.
Without information, people cannot adequately exercise their rights as citizens or make
informed choices.

The free flow of information in India remains severely restricted by three factors:

1. The legislative framework includes several pieces of restrictive legislation, such as the
Official Secrets Act, 1923;

2. The pervasive culture of secrecy and arrogance within the bureaucracy; and

3. The low levels of literacy and rights awareness amongst India's people.
The primary power of RTI is the fact that it empowers individual Citizens to requisition
information. Hence without necessarily forming pressure groups or associations, it puts
power directly into the hands of the foundation of democracy- the Citizen.

Applicability of the Act:

The Act applies both to Central and State Governments and all public authorities. A public
authority (sec. 2(h)) which is bound to furnish information 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
a notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government and includes any (i) body
owned, controlled or substantially financed, (ii) non-government organization substantially
financed - which, in clauses (a) to (d) are all, directly or indirectly funded by the appropriate
Government.

What is Right to Information?

The right to information is defined in sec. 2(j) as a right to information accessible under the
Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes a right to (i)
inspection of work, documents, records, (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of
documents or records, (iii) taking separate samples of material, (iv) obtaining information in
the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or
through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.

Information covered under the Act

The Act defines information in sec. 2(f) as any material in any form, including the records,
documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log books,
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 law for the time being in force. Sec. 2(i) defines the word ‘record’ as including (a) any
document, manuscript and file, (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a
document, (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm and (d) any
other material produced by a computer or any other device.
Maintenance and Publication of Records

Sec. 4 makes it a duty of public authorities to maintain records for easy access and to publish
within 120 days the name of the particular officers who should give the information and in
regard to the framing of the rules, regulations etc. Subsection (3) of sec. 4 states that for the
performance of subsection (1), all information shall be disseminated widely and in such form
and manner, which is easily accessible to the public.

Sec. 6 permits persons to obtain information in English or Hindi or in the official language of
the area from the designated officers. The person need not give any reason for the request or
any personal details. Sec. 7 requires the request to be disposed of within 30 days provided
that where information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be
provided within 48 hours. Under sec. 7(7) before any decision is taken for furnishing the
information, the designated officer shall take into consideration the representation, if any,
made by a third party under sec. 11.

A request rejected shall be communicated under sec. 7(8) giving reasons and specifying the
procedure for appeal and the designation of the appellate authority. Sec. 7(9) exempts
granting information where it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public
authority or would be detrimental to the safety and preservation of the record in question.

Right to Information is a Fundamental Right

The right to information is a fundamental right flowing from Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
is now a well-settled proposition. Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in
favour of the citizen’s right to know. The nature of this right and the relevant restrictions
thereto, has been discussed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases:

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 Raj Narain, the Court explicitly stated that it is not in the interest of the public to ‘cover
with a veil of secrecy the common routine business -  the responsibility of officials to explain
and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption.’

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. The preamble of RTI
Act, 2005 (Central Act No.22 of 2005) recites that the Act has been enacted, to set-out for
practical regime of Right to Information for citizens. To secure access of information under
the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability, in the
working of public authority and also the constitution of Central and State Information
Commission for monitoring; supervision and administration of Right to Information Act.
Apart from this Aim of Right to Information Act is that democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information, which are vital to its functioning and also to
contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the
Governed.