RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Author: Palak Jain, V Year of B.B.A.,LL.B from Career Point University Kota Rajasthan.
The Press Commission of India planned a draught bill throughout 1966 to protect this same right to information, and that was in 1997. However, there have been earlier instances of a similar proposal being moved into the house, dating back to when the Freedom of Information Bill 2000 was introduced in the parliament on July 25, 2000. A bill was also created by the Hyderabad Institute of Rural Development, and both of these proposals caused a national uproar, leading to the establishment of a working group committee to investigate the law's legitimacy and constitutionality. The research group's study concluded that the right to information is not only achievable, but also necessary.
The basic Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, Knowledge and information are required to exercise this privilege. The lack of sufficient knowledge on controversial subjects would only fuel wild rumours and guesses, as well as unnecessary accusations against persons and organisations. As a resultBeing part of both the right to freedom of expression, which also encompasses the ability to collect and gather information, the right to information becomes a constitutional right. Additionally, this will help people fulfil their fundamental duties as stipulated in Article 51A of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, a knowledgeable citizen will be better prepared to carry out these responsibilities. As a result, citizens would benefit from having access to information in order to perform their responsibilities.
The right to information has long been recognised by the courts as a component of the basic right to free expression and speech. To create a formal framework for this right, an Act is required. That mechanism for bringing this right to life will be outlined in this statute.
In order for a genuine democracy to function, it must have access to information. People must be brought up to date on current events and significant social, political, and economic issues. A free country's government must allow for an open interchange of ideas and conversation. the crucial role it plays in sociocultural, economic, and political life growth is becoming increasingly apparent in this Age of Information. In a quickly country such As india, knowledge must be readily available.
Mr. P.B. Sawant claims that "The biggest and most important source of corruption in society is a lack of access to knowledge. It makes covert negotiations, arbitrary choices, manipulations, and embezzlements easier. Transparency in business deals, with every detail available to the public, should go a long way toward reducing corruption in government."
Aruna Roy, a former Magsaysay Award winner and IAS officer, as well as many other well-known individuals in our country, including columnist Ajit Bhattacharjee, attorney Prashant Bhushan, environmentalist and educator Shekhar Singh, writer Kuldip Nayar, activist Dunu Roy, and Parivartan's Arvind Kejriwal, have already raised the issue of the right to information. They believe that having access to knowledge is beneficial.
The right to information has long been recognised by the courts as a component of the basic right to free expression and speech. To create a statutory framework for this right, an Act is required. That mechanism for bringing this right to life will be outlined in this statute.
In order for a genuine democracy to function, it must have access to information. Individuals must be brought up to date on current events and broad political, social, and economic problems. A free exchange of ideas and discussion are key elements of a free country's government. Its importance as a vital force in socio-cultural, economic, and political growth is becoming increasingly apparent in this Age of Information. In a quickly country such As india, knowledge must be readily available.
The Bombay High Court affirmed the SP Gupta ruling in the well-known case Bombay Environmental Group and others vs. Pune Cantonment Board in 1986. The High Court of Bombay made a distinction between regular citizens seeking documents and community commentator groups. This decision was seen as a watershed moment in the history of information access.
Different Indian governments, such as Maharashtra, having recognised this right to information and implement a set of basic, well-defined standards to ensure that their inhabitants have access to that information.
Among the most important aspects of this legislation is that it must have the highest transparency level. This law shouldn't have a lot of restrictions or be vague if the government passes it because this will start creating a sense of insecurity in the public instead of increasing trust and faith in the national coffers. The administration has complete discretion over which pathways are not to be disclosed, and this must be made explicit in the short title of the legislation. The act should not be riddled with "ifs" and "buts," and it should not include a condition for each thread.
Everything could be said about this right to information is that it is a very vital piece of legislation that the administration must pass in order to ensure high levels of openness in government business and to actualize and convey the true definition of the word democratic.