Supreme Court on Right to Information

Landmark Case: SP Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 — The Supreme Court, per Justice Bhagwati, declared the right to information a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and established the principle that disclosure is the rule and secrecy is the exception — the single most quoted RTI principle in Indian law.

Evolution of RTI Jurisprudence

The RTI Act 2005 did not emerge from nowhere. It was the statutory codification of fifty-five years of Supreme Court judgments. Each case added a new dimension — from receiving information, to the right to know every public act, to the voters’ right to know their candidates. Together, these ten decisions built the constitutional foundation on which the Act stands.

Timeline of Leading Cases

graph LR
    C1["1950\nRomesh Thappar\nRight to receive\ninformation"] --> C2["1975\nRaj Narain\nRight to know\nevery public act"]
    C2 --> C3["1977\nDinesh Trivedi\nSunlight is a\ndisinfectant"]
    C3 --> C4["1982\nSP Gupta\nRTI is a\nFundamental Right"]
    C4 --> C5["1984\nIndian Express\nPeoples right\nto know"]
    C5 --> C6["1988\nReliance v IE\nRTI flows from\nArticle 21"]
    C6 --> C7["1995\nTata Press\nRight to receive\ninformation"]
    C7 --> C8["1995\nCricket Assn.\nUninformed citizenry\nmakes democracy a farce"]
    C8 --> C9["2002\nADR Case\nVoters right to know\ncandidates background"]
    C9 --> C10["2004\nPUCL Case\nRTI cannot be\nlegislated away"]
    C10 --> C11["2005\nRTI ACT\nStatutory codification"]

The Ten Leading Cases

1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) AIR 1950 SC 124

The Madras Government banned the circulation of a journal without adequate justification. The Supreme Court struck down the ban. Article 19(1)(a) protects not just the freedom to speak but the freedom to circulate and receive information. This is the earliest case linking freedom of speech to the right to receive information.

2. State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975) (1975) 4 SCC 428

Raj Narain challenged PM Indira Gandhi’s election and sought documents about government vehicles used in her campaign. The Court rejected the government’s “state privilege” claim and held that citizens have a right to know every public act of their public functionaries. This is the most frequently quoted RTI case.

“In a government of responsibility like ours, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries.”

3. Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

This case established that open government is a constitutional requirement, not merely good policy. The Court coined the phrase “sunlight is a disinfectant” — transparency kills corruption.

4. SP Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149

Petitioners needed to see letters between the Law Minister and the Chief Justice of India regarding judge appointments. The Court directed disclosure and declared RTI a fundamental right. The three golden principles from this case: (a) RTI is a fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(a); (b) disclosure is the rule, secrecy the exception; (c) the government bears the burden of justifying secrecy.

5. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515

Excessive government taxation on newsprint amounted to an indirect restriction on the public’s right to know. The Court identified four social purposes of freedom of expression: self-fulfilment, truth-discovery, political participation, and social stability.

6. Reliance Petrochemicals v. Indian Express AIR 1989 SC 190

The Court refused to grant an injunction against publication and recognised that the right to know flows from the right to life under Article 21. RTI is therefore not confined to Article 19(1)(a) alone — it has a second constitutional root in Article 21.

7. Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL AIR 1995 SC 2438

Article 19(1)(a) protects recipients of information, not only speakers. The public has a right to receive commercial information. Both speaker and audience are protected under the same provision.

8. Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161

The government could not monopolise television broadcasting of cricket. Viewers have a right to be informed. The Court’s most quoted line: “One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce.”

9. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294

Voters have a fundamental right to know the criminal antecedents of election candidates. The Election Commission was directed to require candidates to file affidavits disclosing criminal records, assets, and educational qualifications.

10. PUCL v. Union of India (2004) 2 SCC 476

Parliament tried to nullify the ADR judgment by amending the Representation of the People Act to remove the disclosure requirement. The Supreme Court struck down the amendment as unconstitutional. Voters’ right to know is part of the basic structure — Parliament cannot legislate it away.

All Ten Cases — Quick Revision Table

Sample Problem (KSLU-style)

Problem: Write an essay on the role of the Supreme Court in developing the right to information as a fundamental right in India, with reference to at least five decided cases.

Answer (IRAC):

• Issue: How did the Supreme Court’s case law build the constitutional foundation for RTI before Parliament enacted the RTI Act 2005?
• Rule: The right to information is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. Through a series of decisions from 1950 to 2004, the Supreme Court progressively expanded this right.
• Analysis: The journey began with Romesh Thappar (1950), which linked freedom of speech to the right to receive information. Raj Narain (1975) gave citizens the right to know every public act of their government. SP Gupta (1982) crystallised RTI as a fundamental right with the rule that disclosure is the default. Reliance Petrochemicals (1988) anchored RTI also in Article 21 — the right to life. ADR (2002) and PUCL (2004) extended RTI to voters’ rights and gave it protection even against Parliament. Together, these cases left Parliament with no choice but to enact a comprehensive statute, which became the RTI Act 2005.
• Conclusion: The Supreme Court was the true architect of RTI in India. The Act of 2005 was the statutory recognition of fifty-five years of judicial development of a constitutional right.