Countercurrents: Raebareli: Thursday,
January 29, 2026.
The Right to Information Act was enacted to correct a structural imbalance between the citizen and the State. In a constitutional democracy, information generated using public funds does not belong to officials or institutions; it belongs to the public. The RTI Act converts this principle into enforceable law by imposing binding duties on public authorities and empowering citizens to question, examine, and audit governance. Nowhere is this obligation more critical than in a government district hospital, where public money, administrative discretion, and human life intersect on a daily basis.
Rana Beni Madhav
Singh District Hospital, Raebareli, is a government district hospital and
therefore squarely falls within the definition of a public authority under the
RTI Act. Its records are not optional disclosures or administrative favours.
They are statutory responsibilities. Decisions relating to staffing,
procurement, inspections, expenditure, and service delivery are created in the
name of the public and must withstand public scrutiny. Any denial of such
information must meet the strict legal standards laid down in the Act.
.jpg)
Section 5 of the
RTI Act mandates the appointment of Public Information Officers and fixes
personal responsibility for compliance. This provision exists to ensure that
information flows to citizens efficiently and without obstruction. It does not,
in any form, authorize the denial of information. Citing Section 5 as a ground
for non-disclosure either reflects a serious misunderstanding of the law or an
attempt to cloak denial in procedural language. The section creates
accountability; it does not dilute it.
Section 7 governs timelines and procedure for providing information. It reinforces the idea that information delayed is information denied. In the context of a public hospital, where records often relate to essential services and public welfare, delay or evasion defeats the very purpose of transparency. Invoking Section 7 while withholding information reverses the logic of the Act and undermines its intent.
Section 8 provides limited exemptions, not blanket immunity. These exemptions are narrow, conditional, and must be justified with reasons. Section 8(1)(j), which protects personal information, applies only where disclosure has no relationship to public activity or public interest. Administrative records of a government hospital cannot be classified as private simply because disclosure may be uncomfortable or embarrassing. The Act itself makes it clear that even exempt information must be disclosed where a larger public interest exists. In public healthcare institutions, public interest is not incidental; it is inherent.
The most disturbing aspect of the RTI response is the inclusion of Sections 16, 44, 46, and 66 as grounds for denial. These provisions have no role whatsoever in refusing information. Section 16 safeguards the independence of Information Commissions. Section 44 mandates annual reporting on RTI implementation. Section 46 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws. Section 66 enables rule-making for effective implementation. None of these sections empower a public authority to reject an RTI application. Their invocation serves no legal purpose except to confuse, overwhelm, or intimidate the applicant.
The usage of these sections is not a harmless clerical error. It gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that legal provisions are being selectively deployed to create the appearance of legality while, in effect, obstructing transparency. This practice transforms the RTI reply into a bureaucratic shield rather than a democratic instrument. It signals an institutional mindset that views transparency as a threat to be managed rather than a duty to be fulfilled.
The RTI Act does not permit authorities to assemble a list of sections and present it as a substitute for reasoned justification. The law demands clarity. Every denial must demonstrate how the requested information specifically falls within a valid exemption. Anything less reduces the Act to a procedural ritual devoid of substance.
Transparency in a government hospital is not an abstract principle. It directly affects service quality, resource allocation, and public trust. District hospitals serve citizens who often have no alternative access to healthcare. When such institutions resist scrutiny, the consequences are borne not in legal theory but in lived reality.
The RTI Act was designed to pierce administrative opacity, not legitimize it. When a government hospital responds to public queries by misusing statutory provisions, the issue transcends one application. It raises fundamental questions about how public institutions understand accountability and their relationship with the citizens they are meant to serve.
Democracy is not judged by the existence of laws alone, but by the integrity with which they are applied. The misuse of RTI provisions is not merely a legal lapse; it is a democratic failure. When transparency is obstructed through legal obfuscation, accountability becomes performative and governance loses its moral authority.
The Right to Information Act was enacted to correct a structural imbalance between the citizen and the State. In a constitutional democracy, information generated using public funds does not belong to officials or institutions; it belongs to the public. The RTI Act converts this principle into enforceable law by imposing binding duties on public authorities and empowering citizens to question, examine, and audit governance. Nowhere is this obligation more critical than in a government district hospital, where public money, administrative discretion, and human life intersect on a daily basis.
.jpg)
Section 7 governs timelines and procedure for providing information. It reinforces the idea that information delayed is information denied. In the context of a public hospital, where records often relate to essential services and public welfare, delay or evasion defeats the very purpose of transparency. Invoking Section 7 while withholding information reverses the logic of the Act and undermines its intent.
Section 8 provides limited exemptions, not blanket immunity. These exemptions are narrow, conditional, and must be justified with reasons. Section 8(1)(j), which protects personal information, applies only where disclosure has no relationship to public activity or public interest. Administrative records of a government hospital cannot be classified as private simply because disclosure may be uncomfortable or embarrassing. The Act itself makes it clear that even exempt information must be disclosed where a larger public interest exists. In public healthcare institutions, public interest is not incidental; it is inherent.
The most disturbing aspect of the RTI response is the inclusion of Sections 16, 44, 46, and 66 as grounds for denial. These provisions have no role whatsoever in refusing information. Section 16 safeguards the independence of Information Commissions. Section 44 mandates annual reporting on RTI implementation. Section 46 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws. Section 66 enables rule-making for effective implementation. None of these sections empower a public authority to reject an RTI application. Their invocation serves no legal purpose except to confuse, overwhelm, or intimidate the applicant.
The usage of these sections is not a harmless clerical error. It gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that legal provisions are being selectively deployed to create the appearance of legality while, in effect, obstructing transparency. This practice transforms the RTI reply into a bureaucratic shield rather than a democratic instrument. It signals an institutional mindset that views transparency as a threat to be managed rather than a duty to be fulfilled.
The RTI Act does not permit authorities to assemble a list of sections and present it as a substitute for reasoned justification. The law demands clarity. Every denial must demonstrate how the requested information specifically falls within a valid exemption. Anything less reduces the Act to a procedural ritual devoid of substance.
Transparency in a government hospital is not an abstract principle. It directly affects service quality, resource allocation, and public trust. District hospitals serve citizens who often have no alternative access to healthcare. When such institutions resist scrutiny, the consequences are borne not in legal theory but in lived reality.
The RTI Act was designed to pierce administrative opacity, not legitimize it. When a government hospital responds to public queries by misusing statutory provisions, the issue transcends one application. It raises fundamental questions about how public institutions understand accountability and their relationship with the citizens they are meant to serve.
Democracy is not judged by the existence of laws alone, but by the integrity with which they are applied. The misuse of RTI provisions is not merely a legal lapse; it is a democratic failure. When transparency is obstructed through legal obfuscation, accountability becomes performative and governance loses its moral authority.
.JPG)
.JPG)
