act:section-4
no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | act:section-4 [2026/04/20 19:16] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | metatag-description=(Section 4 of the RTI Act — proactive disclosure by public authorities. 17 mandatory categories under 4(1)(b), 4(2) dissemination, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====== Section 4 — Obligations of Public Authorities ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ : | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{page> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round info 95%> | ||
| + | **In one line:** Section 4 places a **proactive duty** on every public authority to publish information on its own — without waiting for RTI applications. The core is Section 4(1)(b) with 17 categories. Sub-sections 4(1)(c)-(d) require pre-decision publication and reasoned orders. Section 4(2)-(4) require electronic dissemination in local language. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Why Section 4 matters ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | A compliant Section 4 disclosure **eliminates 60-70 percent of potential RTIs**. The Supreme Court in //Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI//, (2020) 11 SCC 345 treated non-compliance as a contributor to Information Commission backlogs. A fully-functional Section 4 page on every department' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== The 17 categories (Section 4(1)(b)) ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | See our full [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Organisation, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Legislative history ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **12 October 2005** — commenced. | ||
| + | * **2006, 2013 DoPT OMs** — operational guidance issued. | ||
| + | * **2019 amendment** — no change to Section 4. | ||
| + | * **DPDP 2025** — indirectly touches Section 4 to the extent beneficiary-list publication under 4(1)(b)(xiii) must respect the amended Section 8(1)(j) privacy test. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Landmark rulings ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **//Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India//, (2020) 11 SCC 345** — SC directions on Commission oversight of Section 4 implementation. | ||
| + | * **//State of U.P. v. Raj Narain//, (1975) 4 SCC 428** — foundational right-to-know jurisprudence later crystallised in Section 4. | ||
| + | * **CIC Decision // | ||
| + | * **//S.P. Gupta v. President of India//**, AIR 1982 SC 149 — right of citizens to know the functioning of government. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Enforcement under 4 ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Two routes when a public authority is non-compliant: | ||
| + | - File an RTI under Section 6 seeking the 17 categories. If refused, 19(1) then 19(3). | ||
| + | - File a **Section 18 complaint** directly to the Information Commission — no RTI needed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Section 19(8)(a)(vi) empowers the Commission to direct compliance with Section 4(1)(b). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Drafting ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Template in your RTI to trigger Section 4 audit: | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | 1. A copy of the Section 4(1)(b) information published by | ||
| + | | ||
| + | with URLs and last-updated dates for each. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. A copy of the Section 4 compliance report filed by | ||
| + | | ||
| + | last three financial years. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[act|Back to the full RTI Act]] | ||
| + | * [[act: | ||
| + | * [[act: | ||
| + | * [[act: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Sources ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | - RTI Act, 2005, Section 4. | ||
| + | - //Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India//, (2020) 11 SCC 345. | ||
| + | - //State of U.P. v. Raj Narain//, (1975) 4 SCC 428. | ||
| + | - //S.P. Gupta v. President of India//, AIR 1982 SC 149. | ||
| + | - DoPT OM No. 1/6/2011-IR dated 15 April 2013. | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Last reviewed on: 21 April 2026// | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{tag> | ||
Was this helpful?
— views
Thanks for the signal.
act/section-4.txt · Last modified: (external edit)
