Disclosure Deficit in FOI/RTI Acts of SAARC Nations: An Analysis with Particular Reference to 'Exemptions'

Raja Mutthirulandi
{"title":"Disclosure Deficit in FOI/RTI Acts of SAARC Nations: An Analysis with Particular Reference to 'Exemptions'","authors":"Raja Mutthirulandi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2755417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Freedom of Right to Information (FOI/RTI) has been universally recognized as a Fundamental Human Right. Such a wide recognition of the right has perhaps propelled nearly 104 countries so far to bring into operation specific legal instruments to ensure this right to their people. Pitching with the global trend in this direction, almost all countries in the SAARC do have in force (except Sri Lanka and Bhutan) exclusive Acts (Ordinance in Pakistan) to provide access to public information. But, the legal frame work of the relevant enactments of these countries – globally evaluated on the basis of ‘seven different categories’ – present a glaring mixture of top and bottom scores. This is indicative of the levels of access to information available to the people through relevant Acts in their countries.One of the basic elements of FOI/RTI Act is ‘‘Exemptions’’ and this is also a crucial category of evaluation employed by International bodies assessing the efficacy of laws in this sphere. The “Exemptions” section is often reckoned as the heart of the FOI/RTI legislation. This is mainly because, “exemptions” to a large extent, determine the levels of people’s access to public records under the Legislation. Generally, Acts to provide access to information are expected, among other things, to have very limited but clearly spelt out exclusions as per international norms and be precisely disclosure-oriented. Further, there should be specific, unambiguous provisions for “public interest override”, “severability of information”, “duration to withhold information under exempt category”, “avoidance of blanket exclusions of public bodies” and “supremacy of the Act” in relation to existing legislations.A closer analysis of FOI/RTI Acts of SAARC nations with reference to the aspects listed hereinabove, reveal high level of disparity among them and a clear disclosure deficit. This paper undertakes an in-depth scrutiny of the relevant Acts in force in SAARC countries, with particular reference to the provisions related to “exemptions/exclusions from disclosure” housed in the Acts.","PeriodicalId":137430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Law eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2755417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Freedom of Right to Information (FOI/RTI) has been universally recognized as a Fundamental Human Right. Such a wide recognition of the right has perhaps propelled nearly 104 countries so far to bring into operation specific legal instruments to ensure this right to their people. Pitching with the global trend in this direction, almost all countries in the SAARC do have in force (except Sri Lanka and Bhutan) exclusive Acts (Ordinance in Pakistan) to provide access to public information. But, the legal frame work of the relevant enactments of these countries – globally evaluated on the basis of ‘seven different categories’ – present a glaring mixture of top and bottom scores. This is indicative of the levels of access to information available to the people through relevant Acts in their countries.One of the basic elements of FOI/RTI Act is ‘‘Exemptions’’ and this is also a crucial category of evaluation employed by International bodies assessing the efficacy of laws in this sphere. The “Exemptions” section is often reckoned as the heart of the FOI/RTI legislation. This is mainly because, “exemptions” to a large extent, determine the levels of people’s access to public records under the Legislation. Generally, Acts to provide access to information are expected, among other things, to have very limited but clearly spelt out exclusions as per international norms and be precisely disclosure-oriented. Further, there should be specific, unambiguous provisions for “public interest override”, “severability of information”, “duration to withhold information under exempt category”, “avoidance of blanket exclusions of public bodies” and “supremacy of the Act” in relation to existing legislations.A closer analysis of FOI/RTI Acts of SAARC nations with reference to the aspects listed hereinabove, reveal high level of disparity among them and a clear disclosure deficit. This paper undertakes an in-depth scrutiny of the relevant Acts in force in SAARC countries, with particular reference to the provisions related to “exemptions/exclusions from disclosure” housed in the Acts.
南盟国家信息自由/信息自由法案中的信息披露缺陷:以“豁免”为例的分析
信息权利自由(FOI/RTI)已被公认为一项基本人权。对这项权利的如此广泛承认,迄今可能促使近104个国家制定了具体的法律文书,以确保其人民享有这项权利。随着这一方向的全球趋势,几乎所有南盟国家(除了斯里兰卡和不丹)都有有效的排他性法案(巴基斯坦的法令)来提供公共信息的获取。但是,这些国家相关法规的法律框架——在“七个不同类别”的基础上进行全球评估——呈现出明显的高分和低分混合。这表明人民通过其国家的相关法案获得信息的程度。《信息自由法》的基本要素之一是“豁免”,这也是国际机构在评估这一领域法律效力时所采用的一个关键评估类别。“豁免”部分通常被认为是FOI/RTI立法的核心。这主要是因为,“豁免”在很大程度上决定了人们根据立法获得公共记录的程度。一般来说,除其他事项外,提供获取资料的行为应按照国际规范,有非常有限但明确规定的例外情况,并准确地以披露为导向。此外,对于“公共利益优先”、“信息的可分割性”、“在豁免类别下扣留信息的期限”、“避免将公共机构全盘排除在外”和“法律至上”,就现有立法而言,应该有具体、明确的规定。从上述各方面对南盟国家的信息自由/信息自由法案进行仔细分析,可以发现它们之间存在着很大的差距和明显的披露赤字。本文对南盟国家现行的相关法律进行了深入的审查,特别提到了这些法律中与“豁免/排除披露”有关的条款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信