It brings transparency. In turn it empower common citizen.

Dear @Vedamani, we do have in Serbia a Commissioner for Information of Public Intersts.

"The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection is an autonomous public authority, who exercises his/her powers independently and whose competences are set by Article 44 of the Law on Personal Data Protection. For the purpose of exercising the duties within his/hers sphere of competence, the Commissioner basically has two types of powers: those relating to his/her capacity of a second-instance authority responsible for protecting the right to data protection in appeal proceedings and those relating to his/her capacity of a supervisory authority responsible for enforcing the law.

Four basic legal rights regarding access to information of public importance (Article 5):

• the right of the applicant to be informed whether the public authorities hold have specific information, i.e. whether it is otherwise accessible;
• the right of the applicant to have the information of public interest accessible by providing free of charge insight in a document containing the information;
• the right of the applicant to obtain a copy of the document containing the requested information, upon reimbursing the necessary costs of copying the document and
• the right of the applicant to receive a copy of the document sent to the address by mail, fax, electronically or otherwise, upon reimbursing the costs of sending..."

The role of information access is huge in the era of democracy and e-democracy! That is why the role of Commissioner is inevitable.

http://www.poverenik.rs/en/contents-of-the-right.html

No doubt the era of e-democracy has brought in a great deal of transparency yet there are a number of grey areas. In order to make such areas transparent the Right to Information comes in handy. 

for instance - The websites and other documents provide the proceedures in an organisation but the decisions as a result of such proceedures are not in always displayed on the websites. So any such information which can be given - except those related to the security of the nation and personal details - can be acquired by RTI.

I think that there at least two relevant questions intertwined in your query:

1) What is the role of the Right to Information?

2) What is the role of e-democracy and how does that role relate to that of the Right to Information.

There are no one "right" answer to either of these two questions. As in any situation concerning human endeavors, what is done in practice is never exactly like the theories that are supposedly being followed, nor is there any one theory of human behaviour or rights that is universally accepted or locked in time forever more.

All that being said, I can offer my vision of both issues.

The Right to Information, from my point of view, has at it's base two major purposes: the first, giving the citizens of a given country access to the information that they need to supervise the use of power of their government. Without direct access to vital information the citizenry (and civil society organizations) cannot possiibly hope to be able to understand what decisions are being made by their government, much less be in a position to criticize or even support those decisions in an intelligent and knowledgableable manner. The second, and much more important purpose (in my opinion), is to give the citizens the information they need to be able to participate actively in policy making in general and decision making in particular. It is a well known fact that controlling any situation is much easier if you start at the planning stage as opposed to trying to change the direction of an on-going project/operation. As such, citizen participation is vitally necessary if the populace is to have any real control of the way that they are to be governed. Citizenry without a knowledge of the issues behind various questions of policy and decision making cannot possibly be part of those processes (or if they are, the result of their participation will always be a matter emotion and will be open to manipulation of those who have access to information that they can use selectively to persaude the populace in their direction).

E-democracy can either be treated as a technical application for the betterment of the performance of democratic institutions that existed before the Internet and fast electronic media, or it can be treated as a new conception of democracy in the direction of realizing something closer to direct democracy on a national (and perhaps even international) scale. From everything that I have seen and read, in most cases the first option is the one that is being pursued. I have yet to hear of any real effort of any government to find ways to allow the populace to decide on anything other than extremely local issues on new scales that didn't exist before e-democracy (public referendums have existed almost since the beginning of western democracy, so they cannot be included in a list of new democratic procedures that are a result of e-democracy). In any case, which ever of the two possibilities that I mentioned above are pursued, the role of the Right to Information will be one of the two roles that I wrote about here.

One of the problems that are liable to exist because of the existence of the Internet and fast communication is the MISUSE of "information". If in the past it was difficult to get propogranda or misleading and skewed information to the eyes and ears of the entire populace within seconds, that is no longer the case. We are continually being bombarded by various sources of information that have their own specific intentions (that are generally unknown to the public) that can, and do (in many cases) pass on only the real information that serves their purposes or pass on misinformation, for those same purposes. Once they have managed to get their version of reality to go viral, it will take an enormous effort to undo / contradict that vision of reality.

I don't know if you can consider this rather long text as an answer to your question, but I hope that I have managed to pass on some of the underlying questions that I think have to be answered before it is possible to give any kind of difinitive answer to your query.

There is a specific area of public policy where e-information is making fast strides:  legislation about official urban plans and building permits that regulate what people may do with their land and what is going to happen in their vicinity or entire city.  This topic may seem technical, but it is of direct importance to many households and small businesses because the value of land-based investments usually represents their major capital.  Knowing about urban plans may at times help them to prevent negative impacts or to take up opportunities for extension or development.  Although the wording of statutory plans  may still be overly technical, the momentum to post the information on the web is, I predict, going to gradually make the information more accessible to the general public.  and that's e-government with huge personal and public impacts!

I largely agree with what Marc Jay Marcus wrote.

In simple terms, freedom of speech and freedom of association are critically hampered if those involved do not have freedom of information; specifically, access to official records that allow them to understand what policies have been made. Freedom of information, in this sense, is a requirement for freedom of speech and democracy.

Today, with 24 hour media and Internet access, there is a risk of quantity of information displacing quality. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some officials and politicians are not keeping accurate and honest records of their decision making, but are deleting emails and avoiding making written records that can be accessed by journalists or citizens via freedom of information laws. Every year we learn a lot about important moments in history from 30 years previously, when top level officials papers are released from the national archives (in the Republic of Ireland). The risk is that major decisions made today will not be documented in the same way.

The solution is to impose stronger record keeping guidelines and, ironically in an age of immediate access to information online, we do need to reassure our politicians that their confidential papers will be held in a vault until their political career has ended. In the case of the Republic of Ireland, we experienced enormous economic collapse and monumental decisions about bailing out the banks. It seems likely that many of the decisions were not properly documented and the historical account will be full of blanks as a result. Ultimately, this is bad for democracy.