Understanding the Right to Information: Scope and Applicability (Sections 3, 4)

Introduction

Sections 3 and 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 form the backbone of India’s transparency law. Section 3 guarantees every citizen the right to seek information from public authorities. Section 4 outlines the responsibilities of these authorities to maintain, publish, and share information proactively. Together, these sections promote openness, reduce corruption, and empower citizens by giving them access to government functions and decision-making processes. This legal framework ensures that public authorities remain accountable and that information is easily available through various means, including digital formats.

What is Section 3 of RTI Act?

Section 3 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act grants every citizen the legal right to access information. This right is subject to the provisions outlined in the Act. The core aim is to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities.

What Is Section 4 of RTI Act?

Section 4 of the RTI Act outlines the duties of public authorities to ensure easy access to information.
Every public authority must maintain records in a well-organized and indexed format. They should computerize records within a reasonable time, based on available resources. This step ensures that citizens can easily access information through networks across the country.

Within 120 days of the Act’s enactment, public authorities must publish information. This includes their organizational structure, duties, powers, procedures, norms, and rules followed. They must also list documents under their control, public consultation mechanisms, and details of boards or committees. Additionally, they should share employee directories, salary details, budget allocations, subsidy execution, and recipients of concessions or permits.
Authorities must digitize data where possible. They should also disclose public facilities like reading rooms or libraries, Public Information Officer (PIO) details, and any other prescribed information. This data must be updated every year.

While forming important policies or making impactful decisions, authorities must publish all relevant facts. They must also provide reasons for their administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the affected individuals.
Section 4(2) urges public authorities to release maximum information on their own at regular intervals. This helps reduce the need for formal RTI applications.

Under Section 4(3), authorities must ensure wide dissemination of information in easily accessible formats.
Section 4(4) emphasizes cost-effective methods. It requires the use of local languages and the most efficient communication modes. Information should be accessible electronically or in print at a minimal cost.
The term “disseminated” means making information publicly known through notice boards, newspapers, media broadcasts, the internet, public announcements, or office inspections.

Case Law Examples

1. Union of India vs. R.K. Jain (2017).
   The Delhi High Court emphasized that the right to information under Section 3 is not absolute but subject to the provisions of the Act. It clarified that only information held by or under the control of public authorities, as defined in Section 2(h), is accessible under the RTI Act.
2. Supreme Court of India on Section 4 Obligations (2023).
   The Supreme Court underscored that public authorities have a duty under Section 4 to proactively disseminate information, making it easily accessible to the public. This proactive disclosure is essential to ensure accountability and combat corruption.
3. Naresh Trehan vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (2014).
   The Delhi High Court held that personal information exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act should not be disclosed unless a larger public interest justifies it. The court emphasized balancing the right to privacy with the right to information.
4. Jiju Lukose vs. State of Kerala (2014).
   The Kerala High Court ruled that First Information Reports (FIRs) are public documents and should be made available to the accused promptly. However, if an FIR falls under the exemptions in Section 8(1), its disclosure can be withheld until the investigation is complete.

More Cases

1. S. Vijayalakshmi vs. Union of India (2011).
   The Delhi High Court clarified that the RTI Act does not obligate public authorities to create or collate information that is not already held or maintained. The Act requires disclosure of existing information, not the generation of new data or opinions.
2. Supreme Court Rejects RTI Plea on Judicial Inquiry Report (2025).
   The Supreme Court declined an RTI request seeking access to an in-house inquiry report concerning allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma. The court cited fiduciary obligations and the need to protect individual privacy as reasons for denial, highlighting the limitations under the RTI Act regarding sensitive judicial matters.
3. Repeated RTI Applications Leading to Legal Action (2025).
   A retired police officer faced legal action for allegedly misusing the RTI Act by submitting numerous repetitive applications to the Hyderabad police. Authorities claimed that these actions overwhelmed administrative operations and were intended to harass officials, leading to a case under relevant legal provisions.

Conclusion

Sections 3 and 4 of the RTI Act serve as powerful tools for citizens to hold the government accountable. While Section 3 empowers individuals with the right to access information, Section 4 ensures public authorities make vital data available proactively. By promoting transparency, digital accessibility, and citizen engagement, these provisions strengthen democratic governance. Regular publication of key information reduces the need for formal RTI requests and builds public trust in government processes.