Some recent developments such as introduction of RTI Act, media and judicial activism, etc., are proving…

Question

Some recent developments such as introduction of RTI Act, media and judicial activism, etc., are proving helpful in bringing about greater transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government. However, it is also being observed that at times the mechanisms are misused. Another negative effect is that the officers are now afraid to take prompt decisions.

Analyze this situation in detail and suggest how this dichotomy can be resolved. Suggest how these negative impacts can be minimized.

Ghissu Editorial · Accepted Answer

The RTI Act, media and judicial activism have improved transparency, but misuse and fear of prosecution have bred defensive, delayed decisions. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (2018), proactive disclosure and reasons recorded on file protect good-faith decisions while keeping scrutiny.

**Introduction**

The RTI Act 2005, media and judicial activism have moved administration from secrecy to transparency. Misused, the same tools breed defensive officers, so the tension is between accountability and decisional courage.

**How Transparency Tools Helped and Were Misused**

1. **Real gains**: RTI applications exposed the Adarsh Housing Society scam, and the Supreme Court cancelled 214 coal block allocations in Manohar Lal Sharma (2014).
2. **Misuse of RTI**: In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) the Court warned that indiscriminate demands could swamp public authorities, and some applications aim at blackmail.
3. **Media trials and frivolous PILs**: Verdicts pronounced before investigation, and publicity PILs curbed in Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), punish honest error along with corruption.
4. **Fear of deciding**: After the coal cases and the 2017 conviction of former Coal Secretary H.C. Gupta, officers began pushing files to committees, and policy paralysis followed.

**Resolving the Dichotomy and Minimising the Harm**

SKETCH: venn | Reconciling the Two Goods
a: Transparency, accountability
b: Prompt decisions
overlap: Good-faith, reasoned action

1. **Protect bona fide decisions**: Section 17A, added to the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2018, requires prior approval before investigating decisions taken in official duty.
2. **Disclose proactively**: Fuller disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act cuts repetitive applications, and fully staffed information commissions can weed out vexatious ones.
3. **Fair scrutiny**: Postponement orders against prejudicial reporting, upheld in Sahara v. SEBI (2012), keep media coverage fair.
4. **Record reasons**: Reasons noted on file at the time of decision become the officer's best defence.

**Conclusion**

Transparency and prompt decisions conflict only when scrutiny ignores intent. Protecting good-faith decisions while punishing misuse lets accountability and administrative courage reinforce each other.

Model answer

Practise this question

Information sharing and transparency in government; Right to Information4 questions

Ghissu