What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: The RTI is now the ‘right to deny information’

Context

Citizens and the media must take up the responsibility to ensure that the original RTI Act is followed and not allow any distortions.

 

Introduction

The introduction of the Right to Information (RTI) Act was a move that generated great hope among citizens since it recognised them to be the rulers of the nation. It empowered them to seek information from the government, with dignity and respect. It looked as if the ‘swaraj’ that they had missed would be delivered to them. The Act codified their fundamental right to information and was one of the best transparency laws in the world. It appeared that it would curb corruption and arbitrariness, with citizens being the vigilance monitors of their government. But, it must be conceded, it has fallen far short of our expectations and the state of our democracy is not better.

• Within a few months, the government realised that this was a transfer of power from public servants to the citizens.
• In less than a year it moved to amend the law which would have weakened the RTI Act.
• But there were widespread protests by citizens across the nation.
• Sensing the mood of the nation, the government dropped the amendments.

 

A gradual erosion

Composition of Information Commissions

• The RTI Act had created Information Commissions as the final appellate authorities to implement the law.
• Most of the posts of ‘information commissioner’ were taken up by retired bureaucrats.
• After working for decades as senior bureaucrats, it was difficult for them to hand over power to citizens and recognise that they were the rightful owners of the government.
• No attempt was made to select people with a record in transparency.
• Many of them looked at these jobs as post-retirement sinecures and worked only for a few hours.

 

Low Case Disposal Rate

• While the national average of the disposal of cases by High Court judges is over 2,500 in a year, the national average of disposal of cases by the commissioners was less than this.
• Given the fact that the complexity of cases before commissions is far less than the cases before the High Courts, each commissioner should have been clearing at least over 5,000 cases in a year.

 

Delays and Pendency in RTI Cases

• While the law mandated a period of 30 days for the information to be provided and the same period for the first appellate authorities, it did not specify any time limit for the commissioners.
• Many commissions began to have pendency of over a year.
• The right to information was being converted into a right to history.
• Many ordinary citizens could not pursue the issue of what was now a denial of information.
• The penal provisions of the RTI Act were the teeth of the Act, but most information commissioners were reluctant to use them.
• The governments delayed appointing commissioners, which only increased the backlogs.

 

Judicial Interpretation and Its Impact

High Court Judgments and RTI Exemptions

• The clear message of various High Court judgments was that the exemptions listed under Section 8 of the RTI Act were restrictions on a citizen’s fundamental right and had to be construed strictly as in the law.
• Parliament intended most information to be provided and crafted the exemptions carefully.

 

Supreme Court's Ruling in 2011

• The entire approach to a citizen’s right to information changed in August 2011 when the Supreme Court of India held in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors:
  1. Paragraph 33: “Some High Courts have held that section 8 of RTI Act is in the nature of an exception to section 3 which empowers the citizens with the right to information, which is a derivative from the freedom of speech; and that therefore section 8 should be construed strictly, literally and narrowly. This may not be the correct approach.”
  2. Paragraph 37: “Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information.
  3. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty.”
• Justification for Restricting RTI: This justified treating RTI as an undesirable activity and labelling RTI users as outcastes.
  1. It justified not giving information and attacks on RTI users.

 

The subject of ‘personal information’

The Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Case (2012)

• The second major blow to the RTI Act came with the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner & Ors. in October 2012.
• RTI applicant, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, had sought copies of all memos, show cause notices, and censure/punishment awarded to a public servant, A.B. Lute.
• He had also sought other details such as:
  1. Movable and immovable properties
  2. Details of investments
  3. Lending and borrowing from banks and other financial institutions

 

Denial of Information under Section 8(1)(j)

• The request was denied, citing exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
• This section exempts:
  1. “Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer … is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”**
  2. The proviso states: “Information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

 

Court’s Interpretation of Section 8(1)(j)

• A simple reading of this clause shows that personal information can be denied if:
  • It has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
  • Its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
• The Court did not rule on whether the information sought was an outcome of a public activity or if its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
• Instead, it denied the information by reading only the first seven words of the provision and declaring it ‘personal information’.

 

Consequences of the Judgment

• Most information can be linked to some person.
• Parliament provided a simple test in the proviso:
  1. “Information which would not be denied to Parliament or State Legislature should not be denied to any person.”
  2. This implies that anyone denying information to a citizen must prove that they would also deny it to Parliament.

 

Legal Precedents and Misinterpretations

• Literal interpretation should be applied unless it leads to absurdity.
• In Nasiruddin and others vs Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577, the Court stated:
  1. “The court’s jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous… It cannot re-write or recast legislation.”
  2. “The real intention of the legislation must be gathered from the language used.”
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande effectively amends the RTI Act and has been used as a precedent in six subsequent Court judgments.
• It has become the gold standard for converting RTI into RDI (Right to Deny Information).
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act follows this precedent and amends the RTI Act itself.
• Other cases have similarly misinterpreted words in the law, altering their usual meanings.

 

Conclusion: A call to citizens

To ensure that the RTI fulfils its original promise we should go by the original Act and not allow any distortions. Citizens and the media must take up the responsibility to discuss and defend it. Otherwise, we will have a dilution of our fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

 

Editorial 2: Fencing out interfaith relationships in the new India

Context

The enactment of a Uniform Civil Code, in addition to existing anti-conversion laws, is eroding individual rights and the fabric of India’s pluralistic society.

 

Introduction

On January 27, 2025, Uttarakhand became the first Indian State to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), placing private relationships under state surveillance. The official claim is that it would restore gender justice, create “uniformity”, and address administrative oversight. However, when taken along with existing anti-conversion laws, this marks a coordinated legal push to segregate communities — not just in faith, but also in love and daily life. The UCC is the final blow, ensuring that all forms of interfaith relationships are regulated in the ‘New India’.

 

The introduction of more hurdles

Social Barriers to Interfaith Marriages

• Interfaith marriages already face immense social barriers.
• A survey (2014) of over 70,000 respondents found that fewer than 10% of urban Indians had a family member who married outside their caste.
• Interfaith unions were even rarer — barely 5% of urban respondents reported any marriages in their family outside their religion.
• The secular Special Marriage Act, 1954, has administrative hurdles, including a mandatory 30-day notice period.
• This subjects couples to scrutiny.

 

Criminalisation of Religious Conversion for Marriage

• Rigid anti-conversion laws are now enforced in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Rajasthan, among several other States.
• These laws have further criminalised religious conversion for marriage.
• These laws create bureaucratic traps, including:
  1. Mandatory declarations.
  2. Waiting periods.
  3. District magistrate approvals.
• These restrictions deter conversions for marriage.

 

Vigilante Groups and Extrajudicial Harassment

• These laws embolden vigilante groups, often linked to right-wing organisations.
• They justify harassment, policing, and violence against interfaith couples, particularly Hindu-Muslim.
• A news portal found that at least 63 of 101 police complaints invoking the U.P. anti-conversion law against Christians were filed by third-party vigilante groups.
• Instead of protecting individuals, these laws provide legal cover for extrajudicial interventions, often with police complicity.

 

UCC’s Provisions on Live-in Relationships

• The UCC’s provisions take state scrutiny to a new extreme — even informal relationships are subject to surveillance.
• Live-in relationships are now legally required to be registered with district authorities.
• The registration process includes: A 16-page application with official documentation (Aadhaar cards, residential proof).
  1. Seeking approval from “religious leaders or community heads”.
  2. Notifying family members.
• The registrar must inform the couple’s parents or guardians about their relationship.
• Failure to register is punishable with: Up to six months of imprisonment.
  1. A fine of ₹25,000.

 

Impact on Interfaith Couples

• These rules make it nearly impossible for couples, particularly interfaith ones, to live without oversight.
• Only one live-in couple has successfully registered its relationship in Uttarakhand.
• Others have sought legal protection from the High Court.
• A Bajrang Dal leader claims to have sourced details on live-in applications, highlighting the ability of such groups to interfere in private relationships.
• The UCC and anti-conversion laws work in tandem to suppress interfaith unions.

 

A form of apartheid

• The result is a complex legal machinery that actively works to:
  1. Segregate communities.
  2. Entrench religious divisions.
  3. Institutionalise a form of social apartheid.
• Individuals cannot marry or even be in a relationship with the so-called ‘other’ without prior legal approval.
• These laws create barriers for interfaith couples at every stage, whether in marriage or informal cohabitation.

 

Three Ways This System Functions

1. Strengthening Traditional Religious Institutions

• The requirement for religious certification in both UCC and anti-conversion laws formalises the power of religious leaders over personal relationships.
• This contradicts the constitutional guarantee of individual freedom.
• Reinforces the idea that relationships must adhere to religious and community norms rather than personal choice.

2. Enabling Families to Exercise Greater Control Over Women

• Both laws disproportionately impact women, who often face:
  1. Pressure.
  2. Coercion.
  3. Violent punishment for engaging in interfaith and inter-caste relationships.
• By notifying families of live-in relationships, the UCC makes women more vulnerable to honour-based violence and familial control.
• Women in interfaith relationships are often framed as victims of manipulation, stripping them of agency and reinforcing patriarchal control over their choices.

3. Providing Legal Cover for Vigilantism

• Right-wing vigilantes now have a legal framework to:
  1. Monitor.
  2. Report.
  3. Harass interfaith couples, married and unmarried.
• This is done under the guise of preserving tradition and the law.
• When an interfaith couple attempts to register a live-in relationship or convert for marriage, vigilante groups are often the first to know due to:
  1. Legal requirements of public notices.
  2. Family notifications.

 

Institutionalising Segregation

• Amid rising hate speech and polarisation, these laws effectively legalise and entrench the separation of religious communities.
• Prevent interfaith interaction at all levels.
• Similar to apartheid-era South Africa or Nazi Germany, which banned inter-racial unions.
• The effect of the UCC and anti-conversion laws is to institutionalise segregation by making interfaith relationships, whether marital or informal, almost impossible.

 

Conclusion: It could be catching on

Looking ahead, Uttarakhand’s UCC could be a blueprint for other States. Rajasthan’s High Court recently considered mandatory registration of live-in relationships, closely following Uttarakhand’s model. The Rajasthan Assembly enacted an anti-conversion law. Gujarat is also contemplating a draft UCC modelled on similar lines. These legal trends point toward a broader movement toward a systematic regulation of personal relationships. In India, love and faith are deeply personal and subjective experiences that each individual defines on their own terms. These legal developments not only threaten individual rights but also undermine the very fabric of India’s pluralistic society.