Content:
- The RTI is now the ‘right to deny information’
- Fencing out interfaith relationships in the new India
The RTI is now the ‘right to deny information’
Background of the RTI Act:
- Enacted in 2005 to ensure transparency, accountability, and curb corruption in governance.
- Empowered citizens to access information from public authorities, reinforcing participatory democracy.
- RTI was seen as a tool to realize the ideals of ‘swaraj’ and citizen sovereignty.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance)
Practice Question: The Right to Information Act, 2005 was hailed as a milestone in ensuring transparency and accountability in governance. Critically analyze how recent legislative developments and judicial interpretations have transformed it into a ‘Right to Deny Information.’ Suggest measures to uphold the original spirit of the Act.(250 Words)
Early Government Resistance:
- RTI shifted power from bureaucracy to citizens, creating discomfort among public officials.
- Within a year of enactment, the government attempted amendments to weaken the Act but withdrew them due to public protests.
Erosion of RTI Implementation:
- Appointment of Information Commissioners:
- Predominantly retired bureaucrats with little interest in transparency.
- Positions seen as post-retirement benefits rather than accountability roles.
- Poor Case Disposal Rates:
- High Court judges average over 2,500 cases annually; RTI commissioners less so, despite simpler cases.
- Growing backlog, with delays stretching beyond a year.
- The 30-day information provision timeline not mirrored at the commission level, reducing RTI’s effectiveness.
- Weak Enforcement of Penal Provisions:
- Reluctance to penalize non-compliant public information officers, diluting accountability mechanisms.
Judicial Interpretations Undermining RTI:
- Supreme Court Verdict (2011) – CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay:
- Shifted interpretation of Section 8 exemptions from narrow to broader reading.
- Raised concerns about “indiscriminate demands” under RTI affecting administrative efficiency.
- Resulted in RTI users being viewed negatively, legitimizing information denial.
- Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Case (2012):
- Redefined ‘personal information’ broadly under Section 8(1)(j), denying access to public servant records.
- Ignored the proviso that information accessible to Parliament should be available to citizens.
- Precedent for restricting information, used in subsequent cases and legislation.
Legislative Developments Furthering Erosion:
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA):
- Draws from judicial precedents to amend RTI provisions, emphasizing privacy over transparency.
- Raises concerns about prioritizing data protection to the detriment of accountability.
Consequences of RTI Dilution:
- Right to Information morphing into Right to Deny Information (RDI):
- Growing culture of secrecy and bureaucratic resistance.
- Erosion of citizen trust and democratic accountability.
- Reduced Vigilance Against Corruption:
- Delays and denials weaken citizen oversight of government actions.
Way Forward:
- Citizens and Media Role:
- Defend the original spirit of the RTI Act and resist distortions.
- Increase awareness campaigns to uphold transparency rights.
- Need for Transparent Governance:
- Strict adherence to RTI timelines and punitive provisions for non-compliance.
- Appointment of commissioners committed to transparency, not post-retirement benefits.
- Judicial Responsibility:
- Interpret RTI provisions to protect citizen rights rather than prioritizing bureaucratic convenience.
Fencing out interfaith relationships in the new India
Introduction
- On January 27, 2025, Uttarakhand became the first Indian state to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
- Objectives: Ensure gender justice, uniformity, and address administrative issues.
- Critique: UCC, combined with anti-conversion laws, heightens surveillance over private relationships and interfaith unions.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance)
Practice Question: The implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Uttarakhand, combined with anti-conversion laws, has raised debates over privacy, secularism, and individual freedoms. Critically examine how these legal frameworks affect interfaith and inter-caste relationships. Suggest measures to balance uniformity with individual rights and constitutional values.(250 Words)
Existing Challenges to Interfaith Marriages
- Social Barriers:
- 2014 survey: Less than 10% of urban Indians had family members in inter-caste marriages.
- Interfaith unions rarer (barely 5% in urban areas).
- Legal Barriers Under Special Marriage Act, 1954:
- Mandatory 30-day notice period invites scrutiny and harassment.
- Impact of Anti-Conversion Laws:
- Enforced in states like Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Rajasthan.
- Mandatory declarations, long waiting periods, and district magistrate approvals deter conversions for marriage.
- Encourage vigilantism; e.g., 63 out of 101 complaints in U.P. filed by third-party vigilante groups.
UCC’s Expanded Surveillance Over Live-in Relationships
- Mandatory registration with district authorities.
- Registration Process:
- 16-page application with Aadhaar cards and residence proof.
- Approval from religious leaders or community heads.
- Notification to family members.
- Penalties for Non-compliance:
- Up to 6 months imprisonment and ₹25,000 fine.
- Impact on Privacy:
- Only one live-in couple registered in Uttarakhand post-enactment.
- Vigilante groups accessing live-in registration details raises privacy concerns.
Mechanisms Institutionalising Segregation
A. Strengthening Traditional Religious Institutions:
- Reinforces the authority of religious leaders over personal choices.
- Undermines secular constitutional guarantees.
B. Heightening Familial Control Over Women:
- Women disproportionately affected; increased vulnerability to honour-based violence.
- Legal requirement to inform families strips women of agency.
C. Providing Legal Cover for Vigilantism:
- Vigilantes monitor and harass interfaith couples under the guise of legality.
- Public notice requirements enable third-party interference.
Broader Implications for Pluralism and Individual Rights
- Legal framework fosters segregation akin to historical apartheid or Nazi-era laws against inter-racial unions.
- Erodes the secular and pluralistic fabric of Indian society.
- Restricts individual rights to marry or cohabit beyond religious boundaries.
Possible Spread to Other States
- Rajasthan and Gujarat considering similar UCC models.
- Rajasthan’s High Court reviewing mandatory live-in registrations.
- Movement signals a trend toward regulating personal relationships across states.
Conclusion
- While pitched as a tool for uniformity and gender justice, the UCC combined with anti-conversion laws raises serious concerns over individual freedom and community integration.
- Legal barriers and surveillance disproportionately target interfaith and inter-caste relationships.
- These developments challenge the core constitutional values of secularism, privacy, and personal liberty.
