THE CONFLICT BETWEEN OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (OSA) AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT (RTI)

Due to the controversy surrounding the Rafale sale in India, the Official Secrets Act of 1923 has been in the news. For breaking the requirements of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, the Government of India has sought legal action against press outlets, including The Hindu newspaper and ANI. According to the reports released by various news organisations, the negotiating team and the Ministry of Defense were opposed to the Rafale agreement, and the government did not follow the proper procurement procedures. The government says that these news organisations broke the law by publishing reports and documents relevant to the contract with France to buy 36 Rafale fighter planes. As a result, the government has filed a legal challenge to press agencies' actions, alleging that they have broken the Official Secrets Act of 1923. In their defence, the newspaper companies cite the Right to Information Act of 2005 as a constitutional right.

Thus, a conflict arose between the Right to Information Act and the Official Secrets Act of 1923. On behalf of the government, the Attorney General of India filed a "criminal case" against the violators who are responsible for making the stolen documents public. During colonial control, the Official Secrets Act (OSA) was enacted to maintain and protect the confidentiality and secret of government activity, particularly information concerning a nation's safety and security. On the contrary, the Right to Information Act (RTI) was created to provide access to information regarding government management. As a result of the dispute, the government came under fire for its actions, which were in violation of journalists' right to freedom of speech and expression, as provided by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

THE IMPACT OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT:

The Official Secrets Act of 1923 was enacted in India to promote a culture of secrecy and the specific denial of any claim against the government's workings, whereas the RTI was enacted in India to promote transparency and accountability in the workings of the authorities and the Government of India. As a result, the real distinction between these two regimes lies in their workings and cultural shifts. However, the RTI Act contains some restrictions that prevent the Official Secrets Act from superseding it in terms of public access and power abuse. As a result, RTI does not apply to all government information and documents because the information must be from a "public authority" to be covered by the Act. If there is a conflict between the two laws, the public interest will prevail, according to the requirements of the Right to Information Act of 2005.

Furthermore, Section 22 of the RTI Act states that the provisions of the RTI Act will apply despite anything to the contrary in the OSA, 1923, or any other legislation in force at the time, or in any instrument having effect under any other law. As a result, the Right to Information Act is extremely important in today's environment, where government offices are rife with corruption and unethical behaviour. The RTI Act was enacted with the sole intention of giving inhabitants of the country access to information. As a result, the additional requirements included to the Right to Information Act ensure that government operations are more transparent and accountable.

VARIOUS COMMISSIONS' RECOMMENDATIONS:

Various committees were formed to amend the terms of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, due to a growth in unethical and arbitrariness in the workings of government:

·         In 1971, the Indian Law Commission became the first institution to address the widespread issue of OSA and offer a statement on the Act's provisions. "Just because a document or a piece of information is treated as secret and classified," the committee stated, "it should not be taken into account under the purview of the OSA and its provisions." The law panel also recommended that all national security legislation be consolidated into a single act and passed as the "National Security Bill." The commission, on the other hand, has not proposed any alterations or amendments to the Act.

·         The Shourie Committee was established with the intention of amending the act's provisions. The committee recommended that Section 5(1) of the Act be amended to indicate that the punitive elements of the section should only apply to infractions damaging the national interest. The commission also stated that information dissemination must be the rule rather than the exception, and that keeping it secret from the broader public must be the exception.

·         In addition, the Administrative Reforms Commission was established to ensure that the Act's provisions were followed. "Right to Information is the master key to good governance in the country," the commission stated in its report. As a result, the Official Secrets Act of 1923 must be repealed. However, the government rejected the commission's recommendation, claiming that the OSA is the only law in place to protect national interests and deal with cases of espionage and communication of secret and sensitive information or documents to a foreign enemy that could jeopardise the country's security.

CONCLUSION:

The OSA's most significant flaw is that the phrase "secret" is not defined anywhere in the Act, giving authorities more leeway to abuse their power in ways that are harmful to the public interest. Furthermore, the RTI Act poses a problem because it contains no definition of the term "public interest" and no court-ordered interpretation of it. The secrecy and confidentiality of government operations should be constrained by keeping them time-limited. The government recently organised a committee, chaired by LC Goyal, to study the revisions to the OSA in order to improve transparency and accountability in government operations and to respect the RTI Act's objectives.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of press agencies to promote the RTI Act in the 'Rafale deal' case, stating that "where there is a conflict of interest between the two laws, the RTI Act shall replace the OSA." The Supreme Court also ruled that the Act did not give anyone the freedom to engage in unethical behaviour or corruption. The government's activities are in violation of the RTI Act as well as Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. As a result, as per Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, the requirements of the RTI Act shall take precedence over the Official Secrets Act.

REFERENCES:

https://blog.ipleaders.in/conflict-between-right-to-information-and-official-secrets-act-1923/#:~:text=Section%208(2)%20of%20the,documents%2C%20if%20done%20for%20the’

https://www.adda247.com/upsc-exam/the-right-to-information-act-rti-vs-right-to-privacy-vs-official-secrets-act-osa/

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The method through which firms are directed and governed is known as corporate governance. The governance of their companies is the responsibility of their boards of directors. The shareholders' governance responsibilities include appointing directors and auditors, as well as ensuring that an appropriate governance framework is in place. The board's responsibilities include setting the company's strategic goals, providing leadership to implement them, managing the company's administration, and reporting to shareholders on their stewardship. Corporate governance thus refers to what a business's board of directors performs and how it determines the organization's values, as opposed to the day-to-day operational administration of the company by full-time executives. KEY PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE:  SHAREHOLDER PRIMACY:  The acknowledgement of shareholders is perhaps one of the most essential aspects of corporate governance. There is a two-fold recognition. ...
Read more

PRINCIPLES OF INFLUENCE

Influence is equivalent to power. Perhaps even a superpower. Consider the ability to wield influence as a skill. To be able to use it when the occasion arises. The truth is that thanks to years of research, this is more feasible than you may have imagined. How individuals adjust their conduct to satisfy the needs of a social context are referred to as social influences. It manifests itself in a variety of ways, including conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. Typically, social influence is the result of a specific action, demand, or request, but people also change their attitudes and behaviours in response to what they believe others are doing or thinking. In this discipline, one book, in particular, has had the most impact:  Robert Cialdini's Influence.  Robert Cialdini was fed up with salespeople and marketers treating him like a fool, so he set out to figure out what techniques they employed so he could better def...
Read more