Nepal’s Right to Information Act Falls Short of International Standards

The Right to Information (RTI) Act in Nepal is a significant step towards transparency and accountability. However, it falls short of international standards in several key areas.

Limitations on Access to Information

The RTI Act limits the right to seek and receive information only to Nepali citizens. This limitation is disappointing, as international human rights law recognizes that everyone has the right to seek and receive information without discrimination on any grounds, including nationality.

• Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) confer this right on all individuals.
• Extending the right to non-citizens would have few risks or costs associated with it, as evidenced by the experience of many other countries. It could also provide indirect financial benefits by making Nepal an easier place to do business for foreigners and hence a more attractive destination for investment.

Definition of “Information”

The RTI Act’s definition of “information” is too narrow, only covering information relating to the functions, proceedings, or decisions of public importance. This excludes records and other types of information that are essential for transparency and accountability.

• The RTI Act should be amended to include a broader definition of “information” that covers all types of records and documents held by public authorities.
• This would ensure that citizens have access to comprehensive information on government activities, decisions, and policies.

Exceptions Regime

The exceptions regime in the RTI Act is also problematic. It fails to strike a careful balance between the right of the public to know and the need to protect other important individual and social interests.

• The list of legitimate interests protected by law is too broad, and there is no public interest override to ensure that the harm caused to these interests is weighed against the public’s right to know.
• According to international standards, the right to information should be denied only if three conditions are met: (1) the information affects a legitimate interest protected by law; (2) release of the information would cause actual harm to that interest; and (3) this harm would be greater than the harm caused to the public interest by non-disclosure.

Harm Test

The RTI Act’s harm test is incomplete, as it only considers whether the information would cause harm, but not whether the public interest override applies. This could lead to unjustifiable withholding of information.

• The government should consider revising the law to include a public interest override that ensures the harm caused to legitimate interests is weighed against the public’s right to know.
• This would help strike a better balance between the right to know and the need to protect other important interests.

Conclusion

While Nepal’s Right to Information Act is a positive step towards transparency and accountability, it falls short of international standards in several key areas. The government should consider revising the law to ensure that everyone has access to information without discrimination, and to strike a better balance between the right to know and the need to protect other important interests.

• The government should also consider extending the right to non-citizens and broadening the definition of “information” to include all types of records and documents held by public authorities.