What Happened
- The Delhi High Court, in a PIL filed by the Centre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment, pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for failing to publish civic records proactively even after 20 years of the RTI Act's enactment.
- The Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed MCD to file an affidavit detailing compliance steps for proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
- MCD had argued that Section 86 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act governs the circulation of its records, not the RTI Act.
- The Court rejected this argument, holding that municipal statutes cannot dilute the transparency obligations imposed by the RTI Act and that MCD is "no exception" to Section 4 obligations.
- The order pertains to MCD's failure to upload legislative proceedings, resolutions, and committee records on its website.
Static Topic Bridges
Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005: Proactive Disclosure Obligations
Section 4 is considered the backbone of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It mandates that every public authority must proactively publish specified categories of information without waiting for citizens to file RTI applications.
- Section 4(1)(a): Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed, and ensure that all records appropriate to be computerised are computerised within a reasonable time.
- Section 4(1)(b): Every public authority shall publish within 120 days of the Act's enactment, and thereafter update every year, 17 categories of information including: (i) particulars of its organisation, functions, and duties; (ii) powers and duties of officers and employees; (iii) procedure followed in decision-making; (iv) norms set for discharge of functions; (v) rules, regulations, instructions, manuals, and records used by employees; (vi) categories of documents held; (vii) boards, councils, committees, and other bodies constituted; (viii) directory of officers and employees; and (ix) monthly remuneration of officers and employees.
- Section 4(1)(c): Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing decisions affecting the public.
- Section 4(1)(d): Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
- Section 4(2): Information must be disseminated widely and in a form that is easily accessible, taking into account the cost-effectiveness, local language, and the most effective method of communication in the local area.
- The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended that the scope of proactive disclosure be progressively widened, making Section 4 the "heart" of the transparency regime.
Connection to this news: The Delhi HC's order directly addresses MCD's failure to comply with Section 4(1)(b), which mandates publication of organisational records, committee details, and decision-making procedures. The Court's observation that two decades of non-compliance is unacceptable underscores the widespread implementation gap in proactive disclosure across public authorities.
Right to Information: Constitutional and Statutory Framework
The right to information has been recognised as a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court established this in several landmark judgments before the RTI Act was enacted in 2005.
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): The Supreme Court held that the concept of an open government is the direct emanation of the right to know, which is implicit in the right of free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court held that the people have a right to know every public act done by public functionaries.
- RTI Act, 2005: Enacted to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, to promote transparency and accountability.
- Section 2(h): Defines "public authority" broadly to include any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution, by law made by Parliament, or by notification or order issued by the government. Municipal corporations clearly fall within this definition.
- Section 8: Lists 10 exemptions from disclosure, including information affecting sovereignty and security, information prohibited by courts, commercial confidence, personal privacy, and Cabinet papers.
- The Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) are the appellate bodies established under the RTI Act.
- The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 changed the tenure and salary provisions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners, linking them to the Central Government's discretion rather than fixing them at par with the Election Commission.
Connection to this news: MCD's attempt to invoke the DMC Act (Section 86) to avoid RTI obligations is significant because it tests the principle of whether a specific statute can override the general transparency mandate of the RTI Act. The Court's rejection of this argument reinforces that the RTI Act applies to all public authorities without exception.
Judicial Review and Urban Local Governance
The judiciary plays a critical role in enforcing accountability of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) under the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (1992) and the RTI Act. The Delhi HC's intervention in this case reflects the broader judicial trend of holding municipal bodies accountable for governance failures.
- The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 (Article 243P to 243ZG) mandated the establishment of municipalities as institutions of self-government. The Twelfth Schedule lists 18 functions to be devolved to municipalities.
- Article 243W empowers State Legislatures to endow municipalities with powers to prepare plans for economic development and social justice.
- The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (now unified as MCD after the 2022 merger of NDMC, SDMC, and EDMC) governs the administrative structure of Delhi's civic body.
- Section 86 of the DMC Act relates to the publication and circulation of proceedings of the corporation -- MCD attempted to use this as a shield against the broader RTI disclosure requirements.
- The Delhi HC's PIL jurisdiction (Article 226) enables the Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose, making it an effective tool for enforcing transparency obligations.
Connection to this news: The Court's direction to MCD to file a compliance affidavit signals judicial recognition of systemic administrative opacity in urban local governance. The ruling establishes that sector-specific legislation (DMC Act) cannot be used to circumvent the overarching transparency framework of the RTI Act.
Key Facts & Data
- The RTI Act, 2005 has been in force for 20 years, yet MCD has not fully complied with Section 4 proactive disclosure requirements.
- Section 4(1)(b) mandates publication of 17 categories of information, with initial compliance required within 120 days of the Act's commencement.
- The PIL was filed by the Centre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment.
- The Bench comprised Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court.
- MCD was formed in 2022 by merging the three erstwhile municipal corporations of Delhi (NDMC, SDMC, EDMC).
- Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines "public authority" to include bodies constituted by law -- municipal corporations are unambiguously covered.
- The Second ARC recommended widening proactive disclosure to reduce the burden of individual RTI applications.