Supreme Court on the right to information — the cases that created the right — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Supreme Court on the right to information — the cases that created the right

In 2002, the Association for Democratic Reforms asked a simple question: shouldn’t a voter be allowed to know whether the candidate on the ballot has a criminal record? The government resisted. The Supreme Court answered that a voter’s right to know a candidate’s antecedents is a fundamental right, and ordered every candidate to swear an affidavit of assets, education and pending cases. Every “voter wants antecedents” problem in your paper is decided by that case.

The compact case-list — one ratio each

This topic overlaps Topics 3 and 5, but here the examiner wants the cases themselves, tightly, with a usable one-line ratio for each. Keep this list ready; it is your ammunition for both short notes and problems.

A. State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975)

People have a right to know every public act; official privilege cannot be a blanket shield.

B. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)

Open government is the rule; disclosure the norm and secrecy the justified exception.

C. Reliance Petrochemicals v. Indian Express (1988)

The right to know is part of Art. 19(1)(a), balanced against other interests (there, a fair trial).

D. Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995)

The right to receive and impart information; the airwaves are public property held for the citizen’s right to be informed.

E. ADR (2002) and PUCL (2003)

The voter’s right to know the antecedents, assets and qualifications of a candidate — enforced by affidavit.

The way to deploy them in a problem: do not narrate facts at length. Name the case that supplies the rule, state the rule in one line, apply it, and give a verdict. In an antecedents problem the decisive authority is ADR (2002) — the claim of “confidentiality” by the Police or Election Commission fails because a candidate’s antecedents are precisely what the voter has a fundamental right to know.

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): “The right of a voter to know the antecedents including the criminal past of his candidate… is much more fundamental and basic for the survival of democracy.”

In Simple Terms: A voter cannot vote wisely blindfolded. So the Court held that knowing a candidate’s criminal cases, assets and education is a fundamental right — and confidentiality is no answer to it.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the antecedents problem

Facts. A voter files an RTI application asking the Police / Election Commission for the antecedents of the candidate contesting the MLA/MP seat in his constituency. The body refuses, saying the records are confidential.

Rule. Union of India v. ADR (2002) and PUCL (2003): a voter has a fundamental right to know a candidate’s criminal antecedents, assets and qualifications; candidates disclose these by affidavit, and the affidavits are public.

Apply. Decoy: “police/EC records are confidential.” But a candidate’s antecedents are not private government secrets — they are exactly the information the voter is entitled to, and the affidavits are already public documents. No s. 8 exemption protects a candidate’s declared criminal record from a voter.

Conclusion. The refusal is bad; the voter is entitled to the antecedents.

flowchart TD
    A["Supreme Court builds the right to know"]
    A --> B["Raj Narain 1975 — public acts"]
    A --> C["S.P. Gupta 1981 — open government"]
    A --> D["Reliance 1988 / CAB 1995 — receive information"]
    A --> E["ADR 2002 / PUCL 2003 — voter's right to antecedents"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E box;

Case Laws

State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) — right to know public acts.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — open government; secrecy the exception.
Reliance Petrochemicals v. Indian Express (1988) — right to know within Art. 19(1)(a).
Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) — right to receive information; airwaves public.
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) — voter’s right to a candidate’s antecedents.
PUCL v. Union of India (2003) — right to information a fundamental right; affidavits mandatory.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics