The passage of the Indian Right to Information Act 2005 has been hailed as a landmark piece of legislation
that can change the relationship of the citizens with the State. It was considered one of the most progressive Right to Information laws in the world. With widespread use, it had begun to be seen by citizen groups as a ray of hope to fight corruption, inefficiency and the arbitrary use of power. What is a government file? Why this furore about not wanting to share files notings? To most lay persons, the government file is a musty compilation of important papers. Everyone knows it. Anyone who has had anything to do with ‘babus’, knows the diabolical significance and power the file holds to control many people’s destiny. The government file has two sides to it. The right side has the papers under consideration (PUCs) and the left side has the ‘notings’; notings is the process through which opinions are written down, added to and approved or disapproved.
Though the Act makes no express provision on ‘file noting’, the Right to Information regulator, Central Information Commission, ruled in January 2006 that, ‘a citizen has a right to seek information contained in file notings and no file (or information) would be complete without note-sheets having file noting’. In Satyapal v. CPIO, TCIL, the CIC held that short ‘file notings’ are considered as an integral part of ‘information’ and, as the CIC stated, ‘file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure’.
Also Read : Right to Information and the Judiciary in India
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in its decision regarding Union Public Service Commission v. G S Sandhu (2013)held that the apprehension of the petitioner that if the identity of the author of the file notings is revealed by his name, designation or in any other manner, there is a possibility of such an employee being targeted, harassed and even intimidated by the persons against whom an adverse noting is recorded by him on the file of UPSC, which is fullyjustified. Though, ultimately it is for the members of the UPSC who are to accept or reject such notings, this can hardly be disputed that the notings do play a vital role in the advice which UPSC ultimately renders to the concerned department. Therefore, the person against whom a piece of adverse advice is given may hold the employee of UPSC recording a note adverse to him on the file, responsible for a piece of adverse advice given by UPSC against him and may, therefore, harass and sometimes even harm such an employee/officer of UPSC, directly or indirectly. To this extent, the officers of UPSC need to be protected. However, the purpose can be fully achieved by blocking the name, designation or any other indication which would disclose or tend to disclose the identity of the author of the noting.
Denying the notings altogether would not be justified when the intended objective can be fully achieved by adopting such safeguards.
In UPSC v Lalit Kumar (2011), Delhi High Court made the following observations regarding the non-disclosure of file noting:
The grievance of the Petitioner Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is that by the impugned order dated 12th January 2011, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had directed the UPSC to provide the Respondent photocopies of the relevant file notings concerning two disciplinary cases involving the Respondent after deleting the names and all other references to the individual officers/authorities concerned so that their identity remains concealed.
The information sought by the Respondent concerns the file notings in two disciplinary cases involving him. In the considered view of this Court, the CIC has rightly permitted disclosure by applying Section 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by directing deletion of the names and all other references to the individual officers/authorities concerned. No prejudice can be said to be caused to the Petitioner by the said direction.
In Neeraj Sharma v. Reserve Bank of India (2019), The Central Information Commissioner Suresh Chandra held:
The presumption that the legislature understands the needs of its people and that even its discrimination and classifications are based on adequate grounds has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court itself (In special reference No. 1 of 2012, [(2012), 10 SCC 1]. The logic of balance exercise of judicial power has an assurance of institutional stability and re-organization of the boundary of power is implicit in the Constitutional arrangement. It is contended that the failings of democracy and inadequacies of the democratic process cannot be invoked to negate the core of the democratic principle, namely that ultimate sovereignty vests in the people. Thus, arrangements of governance embodied in the Constitution resulting from the exercise of their free will cannot be used to deprive the ultimate masters of the right of final decision over their destiny. It is argued that ‘juridification of politics and politization of the judiciary’ would be a loss for both the legislature and judiciary and that judiciary cannot act as a ‘censor of all governmental action’. There have been a plethora of judicial orders highlighting the issue of restraint by judicial bodies in substituting their wisdom over those who have been assigned the function of the implementation of Laws.
Thus, the balance is required between what information ought to be dispensed and what not to be dispensed. A file noting is an integral part of governance and serves the purpose when it is disclosed in public interest.
Also Read : Right to the City: Issues and Concerns
In the system of functioning of public authorities, a file is opened for every subject matter dealt with by the public authorities. While the main file would contain all the material connected with the subject matter, which is generally known as note sheets, where decisions are mostly recorded. These recordings are generally known as ‘file noting’. Therefore, no file is complete without a note sheet having ‘file notings’. In other words, note sheets containing ‘file noting’ are an integral part of a file. Hence, when a decision is reached by the public authority, the significance of file noting is utmost. This is the only mechanism by which any responsibility can be ascertained for the purpose of accountability and transparency. It is quite unfortunate that public authority has ignored the positive aspect of transparency and public accountability for removing the practical aberration in administrative systems. If they toned up their grievance redressal system, an aggrieved person may not resort to the Right to Information Act. If Section 4 of the Right to Information Act is followed in the letter and spirit, citizens may not have to submit RTI applications. In the ultimate analysis, controversies regarding RTI Act basically arise from the basic reluctance of public authorities to be transparent and accountable. There is a need for sustained publicity to the ‘success stories’ of benefit derived by the citizen aggrieved by public authorities. The decision of Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions may also provide practical instances of the need for RTI. The existing system of redressing public grievance was unable to resolve the problem faced by the aggrieved persons and therefore RTI has been able to help the aggrieved citizens. It is a social responsibility of the press and media to give publicity to such success stories and educate their readers of the advantages of using Right to Information to resolve their problem with the government. Media can also help in building sustained public pressure against dilution of the Right to Information Act 2005.
I think Right to Information is a wonderful instrument of transparency and accountability and file noting is concomitant to it. If the ‘file notings’ are kept out of the reach of the citizens, then how would people know, how that decision was reached. It will mean that the information provided to the citizens by the government will be heavily ‘censored’ and will not contain the details of various remarks and opinions by the concerned machinery. Right to Information is an effective tool in the administration of justice subject to the condition that people are aware of this fundamental law: Right to know. I feel ‘file noting’ is part and parcel of government machinery because every note sheet prepared by the government functionary talks about policy formulation. If it is for the public, by public and from the public, then it should be made open to all, for the purpose of transparency, accountability and administration of justice.
