Right to information Act, 2005 (Its applicability in Excise & Customs)

Delay and red- tapism are present every  where. Aprocesses. He remains ignorant and unaware of the
couple of years back the administration announcedprocesses which vitally affect his interest. Government
“ citizen charter”. On its record, the governmentprocedures and regulations shrouded in a veil of
implemented the charter successfully. Still, on thesecrecy do not allow the clients to know how their
ground people are aware as to the real situation ofcases are being handled. They shy away from
implementation of the charter. On its part, the Centralquestioning officers handling their cases because of
Board of Excise & Customs issued variousthe latter’s snobbish attitude and bow-wow style.
guidelines to the field formation for implementation ofRight to information should be guaranteed and needs
the charter. However, it is still debatable as to whatto be given real substance. In this regard, government
extent the charter was implemented in the Boardmust assume a major responsibility and mobilize skills
office itself, leave alone the field formations.to ensure flow of information to citizens. The traditional
This is true for every programme initiated by theinsistence on secrecy should be discarded. In fact, we
government for empowerment of people. In fact, theshould have an oath of transparency in place of an
author is of the view that, “people cannot beoath of secrecy. Administration should become
empowered by the government, they have totransparent and participatory. Right to information can
empower themselves”. “Empowerment”usher in many benefits, such as speedy disposal of
cannot be imposed from above. It has to be attainedcases, minimizing manipulative and dilatory tactics of
from below.the babudom, and, last but most importantly, putting a
The recently enacted the right to information Act, 2005considerable check on graft and corruption.”
has many features, which can empower peopleThe issue was also examined in 179th report of the
against insensitive administration. But for such result, theLaw Commission of India. It said,
Act has to be implemented by the people. If the Act is“The legal foundation for exposure of corruption,
implemented by the administration, the result is notmisconduct or maladministration by public servant was
expected to be different from Citizen’s Charterlaid down by the Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal Vs.
and other measures. In this endeavor, this article isState of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632. The case
aimed at making the readers of Excise Law Timesinvolved the publication of serious misconduct of public
aware about the provisions of the Act and how it canservants by a convict who was serial-killer. The case
be applied in the specific situations in Customs &squarely deals with the right to know and the limits of
Central Excise.privacy of public servants. The Supreme Court
“Right to be informed” is an integral part ofreferred to the judgments of the American Court in
freedom of speech an enshrined in the Article 19(1)(a)New York Times Vs. Sullivan, already referred to and
of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court inanother judgment of the House of Lords in England
Benett Colemen and Co. v. Union of India [AIR 1973 SCreported in Derbyshire Vs. Times Newspaper Ltd., 1993
60], quoted with approval the American case in case(2) WLR 449.]. The above declaration of law by the
of Time Vs. Hill [385 US 374], wherein the Vs.Supreme Court is of fundamental importance on the
Supreme Court held that,subject of exposure of corrupt officials. If the law
“The constitutional guarantee of freedom ofpermits furnishing of information regarding corruption,
speech for press are not for the benefit of the presspast, present or impending and gives protection to the
so much as for the benefit of all the people”.informants from reprisals, unless the disclosure is
In State of UP v. Raj Narain [AIR 1975 SC 865], theproved to be malicious, such a law can play a very
court held,useful role.”
“in a government of responsibility like ours, where allOn the basis of these recommendations the act was
the agents of the public must be responsible for theirenacted. The right to Information Act, 2005 declares
conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people ofthat the purpose of the Act is to “ promote
this country have a right to know every public act,openness, transparency and accountability in
everything that is done in a public way, by their publicadministration and in relation to matters connected
functionaries. They are entitled to know the particularstherewith”. Thus the Act is fundamental in making
of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right tothe administration transparent and accountable.
know, which is derived from the concept of freedomHowever, the result can be achieved only if public is
of speech, though not absolute, is a factor whichaware of their rights and willing to exercise those
should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed forrights.
transactions which can, at any rate, have noSection 4 of the Act imposes certain obligation on the
repercussion on public security. See New York Timespublic authorities. Ironically, till this point of time every
Co. Vs. United States, 29 L Ed 822: 403 US 713. Tolaw, notification and circulars have imposed obligation
cover with veil of secrecy, the common routineon the people and public authorities have
business is not in the interest of the public. Such“implemented” these laws. It is yet to be seen
secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. It isas how the public authorities fulfill obligations imposed
generally desired for the purpose of parties and politicson them by the letters of law.
or personal self-interest or bureaucratic routine. The 
responsibility of officials to explain and to justify theirSection 4 (1) (d) provides that “Every public
acts in the chief safeguard against oppression andauthority shall provide reasons for its administration or
corruption.”quasi judicial decisions to affected persons.” Duty to
The Apex Court reaffirmed the propositions in casesgive reasons was established by a catena of judicial
of PUCL v. UOI [AIR 2004 SC 149] and in many otherdecisions. However, a statutory right is easier to
cases. In Regina Vs. Shagilar [(2003) 1 AC 247], theenforce and hence the clause is extremely important.
UK Courts declared “Public has a fundamental rightThe Act has established National Information
to know what the government has been doing inCommission, effective redressal procedure in case of
name”.grievance. Section 20 provides for penalties in case of
However, such declarations are not sufficient forviolation of citizen’s right. Further, statutory
ordinary persons in the ordinary course of business.recognition of this right is always helpful in seeking
Ordinary Statutory Right s can be easily enforced incompensation in civil suits in case of negligence of
the ordinary course of law. The National Commissionmalafide by the public authorities.
to review the working of the constitution said in its 
report,On the whole this is a very good development in the
“Major assumption behind a new style ofhistory of Indian administrative reforms. Now it is for
governance is the citizen’s access to information.the assessees to either utilize this opportunity for
Much of the common man’s distress andbetter and accountable administration or mar this
helplessness could be traced to his lack of access toopportunity by leaving this important piece of legislation
information and lack of knowledge of decision-makingto the whims and fancies of the babus.