right to information act form in telugu

Aim

"To make provision for the disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons providing services for them and to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Public Records Act 1958; and for connected purposes."

Main provisions

Creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities, which include central and local government, the health service, schools, colleges and universities, the police, courts, tribunal and inquiries and other non-departmental public bodies, including executive agencies, committees and advisory bodies.
Exempts some classes of information from the duty of disclosure. Some of these exemptions are absolute, others are subject to a public interest test. Absolute exemptions to the right of access include matters relating to security or parliamentary privilege, court records and personal information (which is normally covered by the Data Protection Act).
Requires public authorities to assist those who wish to access information and allows them to charge a fee for treating a request in accordance with regulations set by the secretary of state.
Requires public bodies to adopt a scheme for the publication of information, including listing the information the authority intends to publish and the manner of publication.
Renames the data protection commissioner the information commissioner.
Grants the new information tribunal (formerly the data protection tribunal) powers to enforce the new rights.

Background

Act's progress: Freedom of Information Act 2000

The Freedom of Information Act implements one of Labour's manifesto promises to end a culture of secrecy in government. Before its introduction, the UK had no legislation obliging the public sector to make information available to the general public. Instead, the code of practice on access to government information of 1994 provided a voluntary framework in which information might be shared with the public.

The legislative detail of the act emanates from the 1997 white paper, Your Right to Know. While the white paper was met with widespread enthusiasm, the draft bill introduced in November 1999 was met with equal amounts of disappointment. Freedom of information campaigners accused the government of watering down the white paper's recommendations, and argued that the bill represented a significant step backwards from the government's initial proposals.

There were particular concerns about the unexpectedly high number of exemptions and that the proposed ministerial veto undermined the spirit of the act.

The bill received six separate rebellions, the largest of which saw 36 Labour MPs vote against the government. The Liberal Democrats - who held the balance of power in the Lords - agreed a controversial deal with the government, in return for four concessions which Lord Goodhart, the party's home affairs spokesman, described as "significant".

The Conservative's leader in the Lords accused the Liberal Democrat peers of "double dealing and twisting in the starkest form" and the peer's agreement was disowned by the Liberal Democrat leadership in the Commons. Finally, in order to force the bill through parliament, Jack Straw guillotined debate after MPs tabled 118 last minute amendments designed to strengthen the legislation.

The act came into force in January 2005. Prior to the full implementation of the act in 2005, there were widespread allegations that several public bodies were shredding or otherwise destroying documents before it came into full effect. A second act, passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2002, extends the same jurisdiction to Scottish public bodies.

Arguably the biggest test of the act came in May 2008 when the Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, lost a high court battle to prevent the disclosure of the details of second-home expenses claimed by 14 prominent MPs. The Commons authorities had challenged a demand by the information tribunal to provide a detailed breakdown of MPs' allowances under the Freedom of Information Act.

A proposal to exempt the full details of MPs expenses from the Freedom of Information Act was abandoned in January 2009, at the time both Labour and the Tories have refused to rule out such a move in the future.

Criticism

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Tory deputy leader in the Lords, said: "This is a bad bill. It's been universally condemned." He and other critics claimed the provisions that allow ministers to veto applications create a "get-out clause" which renders the bill "toothless".

Elizabeth France, data protection commissioner - who was later responsible for enforcing the legislation - attacked the bill for being "over complex" and drafted "back to front". France claimed even her own lawyers found the legislation difficult to comprehend. Although she described the bill as offering "some important new rights", she argued it lacked purpose, which would make it difficult for the new information commissioner to make decisions on what information should be released.

When the freedom of information bill was introduced, Liberty described it as "a huge disappointment" as it proposed a much more restrictive regime than had previously been promised. Liberty criticised the act for replacing the original white paper test for when information can be witheld. The test was changed from "substantial harm to the public interest" to the far weaker test of "prejudice to the public interest". The act also excluded legal and policy advice given to government and made intelligence services entirely exempt from the act. Liberty criticised the wholly unjustifiable blanket exemptions for large amounts of information held by the police and other public bodies involved in investigation and argued that the act failed to serve the purposes of providing the governmental cultural change required for a truly open information regime.