Section 23 Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts:[1]

No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.

The present provision the act bars the jurisdiction of all the courts including High Court to the extent of its original or appellate jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The provision is aims to provide expeditious information to the applicant sans any delayed in the process.

Timely and fair/effective information is the sine quo none to the right to information act. Nothing can bar the jurisdiction of the court to decide the matters if it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice or in contraventionof the prescribed procedure as laid down under the act.

Section 24 Act not to apply to certain organizations:[2]

The provision protects the information if it relates to the intelligence and security organizations as specified under second schedule of the Act, and it is established by the Central Government or by the state Government. The proviso of the aforesaid section explains that if the allegation is pertains to the corruption and human right violation than the information shall not be excluded.

The provision has also specified that if the allegation related to the human right violation then the information shall only be provided after the approval of theCentral Information Commission and such information shall be provided within the 45 days of the said request.

The key word reflects in the provision are follows as:

1.) Human Right.

2.) Corruption.

Right to Information is considered to be the basic fundamental right in our democratic society. As under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution the Apex Court has several times expressed that the right to information is the fundamental right. It has subject to the law made by Parliament. To be an informed citizen is one of the highest privilege for any individual. No authority as provided under the second schedule of the act can claim immunity from any information if it proceeded by the act of human right violation. The word human right is not defined in the Constitution nor in the RTI Act, 2005 but definition of Human Right is provided under the NHRC Act, 1993 which comprises of all the rights that mentioned under ICCPR, UDHR and other as well. Under Article 19 of the ICCPR it secures the right to information. The right to information is crucial in order to achieve the end of justice. India is signatories to these convention or treaties and it is bound by the provision mentioned under unless otherwise provided. At this juncture it is pertinent to mentioned that in the case of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express[3],the apex court held that “the ‘right to know’ is an integral part of the ‘right to life’, and unless one has the ‘right to information’, the ‘right to life’ cannot be enjoyed meaningfully”.

Also, it is important to note the observation of the Supreme Court in case of S.P Gupta v. Union of India[4], the court held that “an open Government directly emanates from the right to know which is implicit in the right of free speech and expression”.

This section is also clarifies that when the corruption is involved in any of the public authorities whether it is exempted or not then it is bound to disclosed the information that has been asked. When the allegation relates to the corruption then there is no need to take approval of the Central Information Commission in reference to the application.

This section 24 must be read with section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 8 of the act provides an exemption from disclosure of information. The provision specifies that in certain situation such as when the information would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, any foreign relation, economic relation and other information as well. Butthe information in relation to the corruption and human right violation then the authorities under section 8 is bound to disclose the information. It is pertinent to note that in the case of VineetNarain v. Union of India[5], the apex held that “The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. Increasing corruption has led to investigative journalism which is of value to a free society.”

The offence of corruption is erodes the basic values of free and fair procedure. Also, undermine the basic human right of a citizen. It dilutes the concept transparency and expeditious process.

The Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 24 may, by notification in the Official Gazetteinclude any other intelligence or security organization as established by the Government or omit any organization already specified in the second schedule of the Act. Every notification issued under sub section 2 must be laid before the each house of the Parliament.

Under sub section 4 of section 24 nothing contained under this act shall apply to such intelligence and security organization as established by the State Government as subject to the proviso of the sub section 4. Any changes made by State Government by way of notification in the Official Gazette, it need to be laid before the state legislature.

Section 25 of Right to Information Act, 2005 (Same as Bare act)

Monitoring and reporting-

(1) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, prepare a report on the implementation of the provisions of this Act during that year and forward a copy thereof to the appropriate Government.

(2) Each Ministry or Department shall, in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction, collect and provide such information to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, as is required to prepare the report under this section and comply with the requirements concerning the furnishing of that information and keeping of records for the purposes of this section.

(3) Each report shall state in respect of the year to which the report relates,—

a)   The number of requests made to each public authority;

b)   The number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to access to the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of this Act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked;

c)   The number of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, for review, the nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals;

d)   Particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of this Act;

e)   The amount of charges collected by each public authority under this Act;

f)    Any facts which indicate an effort by the public authorities to administer and implement the spirit and intention of this Act;

g)   Recommendations for reform, including recommendations in respect of the particular public authorities, for the development, improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment to this Act or other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for operationalising the right to access information.

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be may, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, cause a copy of the report of the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, before each House of the State Legislature, where there are two Houses, and where there, is one House of the State Legislature before that House.

(5) If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.

2) Meaning/ Significance of Article 25 RTI Act, 2005

As the title suggests, Monitoring and Reporting system, the Section 25 of Right to Information act 2005, consists of guidelines for functioning of the monitoring and reporting system so that the act can be implemented and enforced in the best possible manner. One of the biggest issues with the Indian socio-political landscape has been the poor implementation of Acts within the society. Therefore, it is necessary to have a monitoring system to ascertain the success and failures with regards to the enforcement of the Act. This is important in order to achieve the aim of the Act itself. Right to Information Act was brought to strengthen the Democratic structure of the country where the real power lies with the people.

3) Explanation of Clauses of Article 25 RTI Act, 2005

As per Section 25(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, The Central as well as State Information Commission is required to prepare a report at the end of each year on the implementation of the provisions of this Act during that year and forward a copy thereof to the “appropriate Government” [defined in Section 2(a)].

In order to increase accountability, Section 25(2) mandates that each Ministry or Department in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction shall collect and provide such information to the Central/State Information Commission which is required to prepare the report under this section and the report shall basically consist of all the information as given in the Section 25(3). Section 25(3) consists of all the information that needs to be included in the report which help in monitoring and betterment of the Act.

Section 25(4) of the same Act is in furtherance with the Section 25(3). By laying down the report before the Parliament and State Legislature, the basic purpose is to essentially involve the Legislature. This report is an analysis of the factual statement of all the action taken by the Public Authorities under the Act and its overall assessment of awareness and social impact, which would allow the Legislature to have an overall look at the actual status of the Act and implement it in a possibly better manner after analyzing all the errors effectively.

Section 25(5) of the Act is to maintain the spirit of the Act. If any Public Authority does not effectively conform to the provisions of the act, the “appropriate government” could recommend amendments and reforms. Thereby, making Public Authorities keep up with the spirit and aim of the Right to Information Act. This is more of a remedial clause. The Legislature must be made aware about the progress of the Public authority with regards to conformity to the Act.

4) Need and Importance of Section 25 RTI Act, 2005

To ensure the Act penetrates every layer of the society in the best possible manner, this section holds immense significance. It is necessary to-

1-   Increase Accountability: Annual report system makes the authorities more accountable towards public in general. It becomes simpler to judge the performance of the public authorities and their shortcomings

2-   Rectification of Errors: With the annual reports, it becomes easier for the state/central government to identify the shortcomings of the public authorities and work upon them in the best possible manner so that the public welfare can be maximized.

3-   Penetration within the society: It is important that the Right to Information Act, impacts each and every layer of the society from rich to poor, urban to rural. This is for the benefit of the Democratic spirit of the country and ensures people are not exploited with the hands of the authorities.

CONCLUSION:

Right to information is vital to the democratic society. It empowers the citizen to be informed and participatory. The “right to information is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy”[6], it is inbuilt in the freedom of speech and expression. It is one of the sacred right of the citizen. It has attains the global acknowledgement. Various countries of world regarded it as a fundamental right. In order to strengthen and promote the true objective of the democracy then the right to information must be preserves.

[1]The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005).

[2]The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005).

[3]AIR 1989 SC 190.

[4]AIR 1982 SC 149.                         

[5]AIR 1998 SC 889.

[6]UOI vs. ADR, Writ Petition (civil) 294 of 2001.