1. WORKSHOP ON RIGHT TO INFORMATION FOR INFORMATION OFFICERS OF BELGAUM DIVISION [CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR RTI, DEFINITIONS AND EXEMPTION CLAUSES UNDER THE ACT] DR. V. VIJAYAKUMAR vijayakumar@nls.ac.in 23 NOVEMBER 2006

2. Constitutional basis Article 19 (1) (a) – ‘All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression’ Article 19 (1) (a) – ‘All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression’ This freedom is not an absolute freedom and can be regulated by a ‘law’ made by the state under article 19 (2) of the Constitution This freedom is not an absolute freedom and can be regulated by a ‘law’ made by the state under article 19 (2) of the Constitution

3. Grounds of restriction u/a 19 (2) Grounds of restriction u/a 19 (2) a. Sovereignty and integrity of India b. Security of the state c. Friendly relations with foreign states d. Public order e. Decency or morality f. Contempt of court g. Defamation h. Incitement to an offence

4. Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 ‘…tendency to curtail circulation and thereby narrow the scope of dissemination of information, fetters on the petitioner’s freedom under article 19 (1) (a)’ The court in this case also expanded the meaning and scope of freedom of speech and expression to include publication and circulation

5. L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Raj 2 - ‘the state can impose and should impose reasonable restrictions on the rights where it affects the national security or any other matter affecting nation’s integrity. But the right is limited and particularly in the matter of sanitation and other allied matters, every citizen has a right to know how the state is functioning and why state is withholding such information in such matters’ L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Raj 2 - ‘the state can impose and should impose reasonable restrictions on the rights where it affects the national security or any other matter affecting nation’s integrity. But the right is limited and particularly in the matter of sanitation and other allied matters, every citizen has a right to know how the state is functioning and why state is withholding such information in such matters’

6. Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306 – ‘Citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the government. But the right is not absolute, secrecy can be legitimately claimed in respect of transactions with repercussions on public security’ (Vohra committee report – case arising out of this report) Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306 – ‘Citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the government. But the right is not absolute, secrecy can be legitimately claimed in respect of transactions with repercussions on public security’ (Vohra committee report – case arising out of this report)

7. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 ‘the court recognised the citizen’s fundamental right to information and even went to the extent of saying that such a right should be recognised and fully effectuated’ [right to know the antecedents of the contesting candidates]

8. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) 2 SCC 476 People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) 2 SCC 476 ‘Based on the right to know the antecedents of contesting candidates, the court held that reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to know [of information] is always permissible in the interest of the security of the state’

9. Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998) 8 SCC 296 Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998) 8 SCC 296 before blood transfusion, on sample blood test, the doctors found the individual a HIV infected person – matter was informed to his fiancee, who called off the marriage – for having disclosed this information, the petitioner sought damages from the respondent rejected by the court and also it was held that he cannot enforce any other legal right for enforcing the promise to marry rejected by the court and also it was held that he cannot enforce any other legal right for enforcing the promise to marry

10. State of U.P v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865 – The court held that the failure to disclose the details of the ‘Blue Book’ was wrong and that every citizen of India was entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. It was also observed that the right to know is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though it is not absolute. State of U.P v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865 – The court held that the failure to disclose the details of the ‘Blue Book’ was wrong and that every citizen of India was entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. It was also observed that the right to know is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though it is not absolute. Sheela Barse v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 1771 Sheela Barse v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 1771

11. Legislative developments Explosion of information and exclusion from information are two competing trends in democratic policy and governmental secrecy Explosion of information and exclusion from information are two competing trends in democratic policy and governmental secrecy The right to information gained prominence at the global level in 1949 when GA declared freedom of information to be a fundamental human right and touchstone of all other liberties The right to information gained prominence at the global level in 1949 when GA declared freedom of information to be a fundamental human right and touchstone of all other liberties

12. The UDHR, 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations – Article 19 – The UDHR, 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations – Article 19 – ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’

13. The Commonwealth Law Ministers meeting in Barbados in 1980 emphasised that ‘public participation in the democratic and governmental process was at its most meaningful when citizens had adequate access to official information’ The Commonwealth Law Ministers meeting in Barbados in 1980 emphasised that ‘public participation in the democratic and governmental process was at its most meaningful when citizens had adequate access to official information’

14. Article 51 (c) – ‘The State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another’ Article 51 (c) – ‘The State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another’ Article 253 – ‘notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this chapter (Article 245 to Article 252), Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body’ Article 253 – ‘notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this chapter (Article 245 to Article 252), Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body’

15. Hurdle created by the pre-constitutional law, the Official Secrets Act, 1923 Hurdle created by the pre-constitutional law, the Official Secrets Act, 1923 Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that and head of the department can refuse to part with an information [he/she has to merely swear that it is a state secret] Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that and head of the department can refuse to part with an information [he/she has to merely swear that it is a state secret] Rule 11 of the Central Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 prohibits a government servant to part with any official document Rule 11 of the Central Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 prohibits a government servant to part with any official document Rule 9- All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 – no unauthorised communication of information Rule 9- All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 – no unauthorised communication of information

16. Archives Policy Resolution of 22 December 1972 states that all documents are classified for 30 years and thereafter only non-confidential material is available to a restricted range of people. Even ‘unclassified’ material cannot be communicated to any one outside the government without permission. All communications to the Press are handled through the Press Information Bureau Archives Policy Resolution of 22 December 1972 states that all documents are classified for 30 years and thereafter only non-confidential material is available to a restricted range of people. Even ‘unclassified’ material cannot be communicated to any one outside the government without permission. All communications to the Press are handled through the Press Information Bureau

17. Public Records Act, 1993 [Act no.69 of 1993] - Came into force w.e.f 1.3.1995 Public Records Act, 1993 [Act no.69 of 1993] - Came into force w.e.f 1.3.1995 ‘An act to regulate the management, administration and preservation of public records of the central government, Union territory administration, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies & corps., Commissions and Committees constituted by the central government or a Union territory Administration and matters therewith or incidental thereto’ ‘An act to regulate the management, administration and preservation of public records of the central government, Union territory administration, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies & corps., Commissions and Committees constituted by the central government or a Union territory Administration and matters therewith or incidental thereto’

18. The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 [No. 5 of 2003] The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 [No. 5 of 2003] Result of Chief Ministers’ Conference on ‘Effective and Responsive Government’ held in Delhi on 24 May 1997 – recognised the need for such a law unanimously Result of Chief Ministers’ Conference on ‘Effective and Responsive Government’ held in Delhi on 24 May 1997 – recognised the need for such a law unanimously The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in its 38 th Report recommended for such legislation The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in its 38 th Report recommended for such legislation GoI appointed a Working Group on Right to Information and promotion of Open and Transparent Government (H.D. Shourie) GoI appointed a Working Group on Right to Information and promotion of Open and Transparent Government (H.D. Shourie)

19. Justice P.N.Bhagwati Justice P.N.Bhagwati “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…where a society has chosen to accept democracy as its ordeal faith, it is elementary that the citizens ought to know what their government is doing…No democratic government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have ‘information’ about the functioning of the government…openness in government is a guarantee against administrative misconduct. It is, therefore, essential that the people have as much information about the government operations as possible”

20. Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597] observed that ‘a government which functions in secrecy not only acts against democratic decency but also buries itself with its own burial’ Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597] observed that ‘a government which functions in secrecy not only acts against democratic decency but also buries itself with its own burial’ Rajasthan, Goa, A.P, M.P, U.P, Delhi, Goa, J&K, Kerala, Karnataka, Orissa, Maharastra, Tamil Nadu have taken initiatives in this regard Rajasthan, Goa, A.P, M.P, U.P, Delhi, Goa, J&K, Kerala, Karnataka, Orissa, Maharastra, Tamil Nadu have taken initiatives in this regard

21. Research Foundation for Science and Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India, (2005) 10 SCC 510 - DB The right to information and community participation for the protection of environment and human health falls under Article 21 of the Constitution

22. District Registrar & Collector v. Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496 - ‘Articles 19 (1) (a) & (d) and 21 – Right to Privacy of the person – right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure – confidentiality of bank documents, telephone calls and correspondence – SC held that state cannot have unrestricted access to inspect and seize or make roving inquiries into all bank records relating to a person, without any reliable information before it prior to such inspection’… District Registrar & Collector v. Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496 - ‘Articles 19 (1) (a) & (d) and 21 – Right to Privacy of the person – right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure – confidentiality of bank documents, telephone calls and correspondence – SC held that state cannot have unrestricted access to inspect and seize or make roving inquiries into all bank records relating to a person, without any reliable information before it prior to such inspection’…

23. ‘Search, taking notes or extracts or seizure of the said documents would amount to a breach of confidentiality and be violative of privacy rights of customers of the bank, unless there is some probable or reasonable cause or basis, to be recorded in writing, or materials before the authority making or authorizing the search etc.’

24. Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi v. Municipal Corporation of Kalyan, Dombivali (2004) 11 SCC 417 – ‘Under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 the Standing Committee sought additional documents from Commissioner with a bona fide performance of its statutory functions – Commissioner is bound to comply with such request unless there exist strong and cogent reasons for not doing so – Commissioner cannot contend that all information have been supplied in a proforma and cannot seek protection u/s 123 of Evidence Act (privileged documents) – tenders – duty bound to provide additional documents sought by the Standing Committee under R.24 of Working Rules’ Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi v. Municipal Corporation of Kalyan, Dombivali (2004) 11 SCC 417 – ‘Under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 the Standing Committee sought additional documents from Commissioner with a bona fide performance of its statutory functions – Commissioner is bound to comply with such request unless there exist strong and cogent reasons for not doing so – Commissioner cannot contend that all information have been supplied in a proforma and cannot seek protection u/s 123 of Evidence Act (privileged documents) – tenders – duty bound to provide additional documents sought by the Standing Committee under R.24 of Working Rules’

25. PUCL v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 580 ‘section 14 of POTA – obligation to furnish information – intra vires articles 14, 19, 20(3) and 21 – Neither a lawyer can claim professional communication beyond what is permitted u/s 126 of Evidence Act, nor is there any law permitting a newspaper or a journalist to withhold relevant information from courts, nor can withholding of such information be traced to the right to privacy, which itself is not an absolute right’ PUCL v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 580 ‘section 14 of POTA – obligation to furnish information – intra vires articles 14, 19, 20(3) and 21 – Neither a lawyer can claim professional communication beyond what is permitted u/s 126 of Evidence Act, nor is there any law permitting a newspaper or a journalist to withhold relevant information from courts, nor can withholding of such information be traced to the right to privacy, which itself is not an absolute right’

26. Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176 – ‘The S.C located the right to information under Article 21’ (composite code theory of the SC in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India) Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176 – ‘The S.C located the right to information under Article 21’ (composite code theory of the SC in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India) Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922 – The right of the workers (asbestos) to know the details of the mandatory medical examination, held to be valid by the S.C Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922 – The right of the workers (asbestos) to know the details of the mandatory medical examination, held to be valid by the S.C

27. Saiyad Mohd. Saiyaad Umar Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (3) JT SC 489 – The court by implication read the obligation on the part of authorised officer to inform the person to be searched, of his right to information that he could be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate under the NDPS Act, 1985. Saiyad Mohd. Saiyaad Umar Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (3) JT SC 489 – The court by implication read the obligation on the part of authorised officer to inform the person to be searched, of his right to information that he could be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate under the NDPS Act, 1985.

28. If the Supreme Court could lay down these principles as indicated earlier without a law on the right to information, then just imagine what it could do by interpreting the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (irrespective of section 23) in the years to come to the benefit of the people and making the government responsible and accountable. If the Supreme Court could lay down these principles as indicated earlier without a law on the right to information, then just imagine what it could do by interpreting the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (irrespective of section 23) in the years to come to the benefit of the people and making the government responsible and accountable.

29. Judicial innovation under article 19 (1) (a) Judicial innovation under article 19 (1) (a) Judicial innovation under article 21 Judicial innovation under article 21 Composite code as developed by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC Composite code as developed by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC Conflict between these two interpretations on one hand and these interpretations and the R T I Act on the other Conflict between these two interpretations on one hand and these interpretations and the R T I Act on the other Future judicial interpretations under RTIA Future judicial interpretations under RTIA

30. DEFINITIONS AND EXEMPTION CLAUSES UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

31. THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 Act No. 22 of 2005 Act No. 22 of 2005 Received President’s assent on 15 June 2005 Received President’s assent on 15 June 2005 Notified in Official Gazette No. 25, dated 21 June 2005 – came into force on 12 October 2005 Notified in Official Gazette No. 25, dated 21 June 2005 – came into force on 12 October 2005 Repeals the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 [section 31 of the Act] Repeals the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 [section 31 of the Act] Does not include ‘openness’ in preamble as in Freedom of Information Act, 2002 Does not include ‘openness’ in preamble as in Freedom of Information Act, 2002 Does not extend to Jammu and Kashmir (Ltd) Does not extend to Jammu and Kashmir (Ltd)

32. Preamble - ‘An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto’

33. In the objectives to the Act it is provided 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’ In the objectives to the Act it is provided 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’

34. Chapter I - Preliminary Sections 4 (1), 5 (1) and (2), 12, 13, 15, 16, 24, 27 and 28 came into force with immediate effect, while the other provisions shall come into force on the 120 th day of its enactment (15 June 2005) Sections 4 (1), 5 (1) and (2), 12, 13, 15, 16, 24, 27 and 28 came into force with immediate effect, while the other provisions shall come into force on the 120 th day of its enactment (15 June 2005) Section 2 provides various definitions for phrases used like, competent authority, information, record, right to information, third party and the like Section 2 provides various definitions for phrases used like, competent authority, information, record, right to information, third party and the like

35. Section 2 (e) – competent authority – means Section 2 (e) – competent authority – means (i) the Speaker in the case of House of People or Legislative Assembly, Chairman in case of Council of States or Legislative Council; (ii) the CJI in case of Supreme Court; (iii) Chief Justice of H.C in case of a H.C; (iii) Chief Justice of H.C in case of a H.C; (iv) the President or the Governor in case of other authorities established or constituted by or under the Constitution; (v) the administrator appointed under article 239 of the Constitution

36. Section 2 (f) – 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’ Section 2 (f) – 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’

37. Section 2 (h) – 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 made by the appropriate government, and includes any (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government’ Section 2 (h) – 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 made by the appropriate government, and includes any (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government’

38. Section 2 (i) – record includes Section 2 (i) – record includes (a) any document, manuscript & file; (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and (d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device

39. Section 2 (j) – right to information means ‘the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- Section 2 (j) – right to information means ‘the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified 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

40. Chapter II–Right to Information and Obligations of Public Authorities Section 3 – Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information Section 3 – Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information Section 4 – Every Public Authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records facilitated – also to provide the information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet – dissemination, keeping in mind the cost effectiveness, local language - Section 4 – Every Public Authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records facilitated – also to provide the information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet – dissemination, keeping in mind the cost effectiveness, local language -

41. Section 5 – Designation of Public Information Officers [Central Public Information Officers and State Public Information Officers] within 100 days of the enactment of this Act Section 5 – Designation of Public Information Officers [Central Public Information Officers and State Public Information Officers] within 100 days of the enactment of this Act Section 6 (2) – No reason need to be given for requesting the information or any other personal details by the applicant except those that may be necessary for contacting him Section 6 (2) – No reason need to be given for requesting the information or any other personal details by the applicant except those that may be necessary for contacting him

42. Section 7 – Disposal of request – as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9 – failing which it shall be deemed to have refused the request Section 7 – Disposal of request – as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9 – failing which it shall be deemed to have refused the request

43. Section 8 – Exemptions from disclosure of information Section 8 – Exemptions from disclosure of information 8 (1)-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,— 8 (1)-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,— (a)information, disclosure of which would prejudicially 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;

44. (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; (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)information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; (c)information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;

45. (d)information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (d)information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the 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; (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; (f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;

46. (g) information, the disclosure 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; (g) information, the disclosure 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 offenders; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

47. (i)cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: (i)cabinet papers including records of deliberations of 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;

48. (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: (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.

49. 8 (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 8 (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 8 (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 secton 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: 8 (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 secton 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.

50. Section 9. 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. Section 9. 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.

51. Section 10 – severability of information to be given – possible Section 10 – severability of information to be given – possible Section 11 – third party information – time schedule – five days – written notice to the third party inviting to make a submission in writing or orally and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information [10 days] Section 11 – third party information – time schedule – five days – written notice to the third party inviting to make a submission in writing or orally and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information [10 days] CIC and SIC CIC and SIC

52. Section 20 – Penalties [mandatory?] Section 20 – Penalties [mandatory?] for mala fide actions for mala fide actions Rupees 250 for every day but subject to a maximum of 25,000 Rupees 250 for every day but subject to a maximum of 25,000 Also for initiating disciplinary proceedings against CPIO or SPIOs under the respective service rules applicable to them Also for initiating disciplinary proceedings against CPIO or SPIOs under the respective service rules applicable to them

53. Chapter VI - Miscellaneous Section 21 – protection of action taken in good faith Section 21 – protection of action taken in good faith Section 22 - Overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act 1923 Section 22 - Overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act 1923 Section 23 – Bar on the jurisdiction of courts – Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu Section 23 – Bar on the jurisdiction of courts – Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu

54. Section 24 – Act not to apply to agencies specified in Schedule II to the Act – IB, RAW, DRI, CEIB, DE, NCB, ARC, SPF, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, ASSAM RIFLES, SPECIAL SERVICE BUREAU, SPECIAL BRANCH (CID) ANDAMAN & NICOBAR, THE CRIME BRANCH-CID-CB DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI, SPECIAL BRANCH OF LAKSHADWEEP POLICE Section 24 – Act not to apply to agencies specified in Schedule II to the Act – IB, RAW, DRI, CEIB, DE, NCB, ARC, SPF, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, ASSAM RIFLES, SPECIAL SERVICE BUREAU, SPECIAL BRANCH (CID) ANDAMAN & NICOBAR, THE CRIME BRANCH-CID-CB DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI, SPECIAL BRANCH OF LAKSHADWEEP POLICE

55. District Registrar & Collector v. Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496 District Registrar & Collector v. Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496 ‘Articles 19 (1) (a) & (d) and 21 – Right to Privacy of the person – right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure – confidentiality of bank documents, telephone calls and correspondence – SC held that state cannot have unrestricted access to inspect and seize or make roving inquiries into all bank records relating to a person, without any reliable information before it prior to such inspection, Search, taking notes or extracts or seizure of the said documents would amount to a breach of confidentiality and be violative of privacy rights of customers of the bank, unless there is some probable or reasonable cause or basis, to be recorded in writing, or materials before the authority making or authorizing the search etc.’

56. Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673 - ‘Articles 21 & 14 – right to information – allotment of retail outlets, distributorships and dealerships of petroleum products – political patronage for allotment was alleged by the press – Under such circumstances, the public in general has a right to know under what basis their elected representatives got such allotments’ Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673 - ‘Articles 21 & 14 – right to information – allotment of retail outlets, distributorships and dealerships of petroleum products – political patronage for allotment was alleged by the press – Under such circumstances, the public in general has a right to know under what basis their elected representatives got such allotments’

57. Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi v. Municipal Corporation of Kalyan, Dombivali (2004) 11 SCC 417 – ‘Under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 the Standing Committee sought additional documents from Commissioner with a bona fide performance of its statutory functions – Commissioner is bound to comply with such request unless there exist strong and cogent reasons for not doing so – Commissioner cannot contend that all information have been supplied in a proforma and cannot seek protection u/s 123 of Evidence Act (privileged documents) – tenders – duty bound to provide additional documents sought by the Standing Committee under R.24 of Working Rules’ Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi v. Municipal Corporation of Kalyan, Dombivali (2004) 11 SCC 417 – ‘Under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 the Standing Committee sought additional documents from Commissioner with a bona fide performance of its statutory functions – Commissioner is bound to comply with such request unless there exist strong and cogent reasons for not doing so – Commissioner cannot contend that all information have been supplied in a proforma and cannot seek protection u/s 123 of Evidence Act (privileged documents) – tenders – duty bound to provide additional documents sought by the Standing Committee under R.24 of Working Rules’

58. PUCL v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 580 ‘section 14 of POTA – obligation to furnish information – intra vires articles 14, 19, 20(3) and 21 – Neither a lawyer can claim professional communication beyond what is permitted u/s 126 of Evidence Act, nor is there any law permitting a newspaper or a journalist to withhold relevant information from courts, nor can withholding of such information be traced to the right to privacy, which itself is not an absolute right’ PUCL v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 580 ‘section 14 of POTA – obligation to furnish information – intra vires articles 14, 19, 20(3) and 21 – Neither a lawyer can claim professional communication beyond what is permitted u/s 126 of Evidence Act, nor is there any law permitting a newspaper or a journalist to withhold relevant information from courts, nor can withholding of such information be traced to the right to privacy, which itself is not an absolute right’

59. POSTSCRIPT

61. Thank you