B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Right to Information 2012 Dec Question Paper with Solutions

For full marks, cover: the concept and why the Constitution does not name it; Stage 1, secrecy as the rule (Official Secrets Act 1923, privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act); Stage 2, the concept is born (State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, 1975, Mathew J); Stage 3, open government (S.P. Gupta, 1981); Stage 4, receiving, imparting and publishing (R. Rajagopal, 1994; Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995); Stage 5, the voter's right to know (Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002; People's Union for Civil Liberties, 2003; Lok Prahari, 2018; the Electoral Bonds case, 2024); Stage 6, limits (Dinesh Trivedi, 1997; Puttaswamy, 2017); Stage 7, from judge-made right to statute (State laws, the 2002 Act, the 2005 Act); Stage 8, the statute read widely (Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Yashwant Sinha, 2019); a timeline; assessment; conclusion.

Stage 2: the concept is born, 1975

State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, arose from Raj Narain's election petition against the Prime Minister. He sought production of the "Blue Book", the rules for the Prime Minister's security on tour. The State claimed privilege under section 123. The majority set aside the High Court's order and sent the matter back to weigh the affidavits. But Mathew J, concurring, wrote the words that started the concept. In a responsible government, he said, "there can but few secrets". The people "have a right to know every public act, everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries". He derived this right from freedom of speech, while adding that it is not absolute.

2. Receiving and imparting. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161, the dispute was over telecasting cricket. The Court held that "the right to impart and receive information is a species of the right of freedom of speech and expression".

Stage 5: the voter's right to know

The concept found its strongest use in elections.

1. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, the Court held that a voter's right to know candidates' antecedents is part of Article 19(1)(a). It directed affidavits on convictions, pending cases, assets, liabilities and education.
2. When Parliament inserted section 33B in the election law to limit those disclosures, People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2363, struck it down. The voter's right "cannot be frozen and stagnated".

Stage 7: from a judge-made right to a statute

A right enforced only through constitutional litigation reached few people. The movement for a law grew in Rajasthan in the 1990s through the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan. Tamil Nadu and Goa passed State laws in 1997, and Rajasthan and Karnataka in 2000. Parliament passed the Freedom of Information Act 2002, which was never brought into force. The Right to Information Act 2005 then gave every citizen a procedure, time limits, independent Commissions and penalties.

Stage 8: the statute read widely

After 2005, the courts used the Act to carry the concept further.

1. In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (13 November 2019), five Judges held that even the office of the Chief Justice of India is part of a public authority under the Act. The fact of judges' asset declarations was ordered to be disclosed.

Assessment

The concept grew in an unusual way. It began as a concurring opinion against a background of colonial secrecy. It became a holding, spread to elections and the press, and finally became a statute. Its strength is that it rests on Article 19(1)(a), so Parliament cannot simply legislate it away, as People's Union for Civil Liberties showed. Its weakness is that, as a constitutional right, it depends on litigation. Its scope also now has to be balanced against privacy.