Efficient implementation of the Act would make the point moot but what are bureaucrats afraid of?
Former Chief Information Commissioner
Since programmes to advance the public’s understanding were not organised, the government can hardly blame the public for misuse
As the Right to Information (RTI) Act celebrates its sixth year, there has been much heated discussion, often emotional, on the benefits that it has brought and the challenges with which it has confronted the bureaucracy. This debate came to a head with the prime minister’s inaugural address to the Annual Convention of the Central Information Commission on October 14.
It is accepted in all circles that the essence of government in a democracy must be transparency with every organ of the government – executive, judiciary and legislature – being answerable to the citizen. India’s RTI Act, 2005, therefore, asserts that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information, which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed.
This law places a responsibility on all sections of the national fabric and not the bureaucracy alone. This brings into context the PM’s call, on October 14, to all participants in the process to flag the challenges that the government and the citizenry face in applying the law. What must follow, then, is enforcement of the obligation so clearly enunciated in Section 4 (1) of the Act.
“Every public authority shall — (a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated” (emphasis added).
More From This Section
The RTI includes the right to inspect works, documents, records, take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records, take certified samples of material, obtain information in form of printouts, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts. It does not extend to information not held in material form. Moreover, a host of information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act. But most exempt information is, at any rate, to be released after 20 years, with some exceptions, although it is also provided that the information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature, shall not be denied to any person.
The Act indeed places a host of responsibilities on public authorities who were required to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs)/assistant PIOs within 100 days of enactment and to begin maintaining, cataloguing, and indexing, computerising and networking records in accordance with Section 4(1) (a). If this has not happened to the extent required, the government, which appoints Central Public Information Officers that are at present officers at relatively junior level, has only itself to blame.
These authorities were further to publish, within 120 days of enactment, a whole set of information and update it every year. This was to include publishing suo moto all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions that affect the public, and also providing reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to all affected people.
Effective dissemination of information by this means would ensure that applications for information and any appeals that might follow would be only for access to esoteric information.
Authorities were made primarily responsible for raising awareness, educating and training, not only to officials but to the members of the public. For this, every department was expected to develop and organise educational programmes to advance the understanding of the public, particularly the disadvantaged, to exercise right to information. Not having done so, the government can hardly blame the public for misuse.
The government has indeed developed a scheme for e-governance. It is agreed that for the success of this initiative, RTI is essential. Here there has been progress, but only at the level of the central government.
Key to the effective functioning of the Act is the Gram Panchayat, which can prove the repository for scheme information, citizen surveys, fiscal information and so on. But this will happen only with the devolution of functions, funds and functionaries. This body can then become the service provider for a host of services, working to keep the citizenry informed, with citizens as a group (gram sabhas) and citizens as individuals.
Global moderator on RTI India.org
It is the government’s job to train its officers in the disclosure of information. Training them in correctly denying it, is equally important
Battered by several inconvenient disclosures, the government seems to be all set to rein in the Right to Information (RTI) genie as is evident in criticism of the law from many quarters. The Prime Minister has led the assault himself when he expressed concerns over the impact of the RTI Act on efficient governance and the limited resources of public authorities. Another minister has questioned the type of information that should be disclosed under RTI.
Before the advent of the RTI Act, information from within the government was available to journalists with the right contacts and some vested interests who would strategically “leak” it, attributing it to “reliable sources”. The only change after the RTI Act has been that the same information is now available to any ordinary citizen. The advocates of a critical review of the Act are now proposing to bar the common man from accessing information and restricting its availability to a few. Information is not some kind of a scarce commodity in a socialist economy, only to be rationed out in limited quantities to a select few.
The latest bout of RTI soul-searching started with the release of the now famous note related to the 2G controversy. Not many know that the note had been released twice earlier but it was only the third applicant who was able to appreciate its import and release it into the public domain. Being the national RTI coordinator for the BJP helped in creating the pandemonium. RTI only allows a citizen to access information, leaving it to the recipient to interpret it. If the interpretation is incorrect or is quoted out of context, as was initially claimed in this case, surely the government should have set the record straight by releasing the complete set of documents. Strangely, rather than answering the message, the government is shooting the messenger, making the citizen all the more suspicious of its intentions. It is the government’s job to train its officers in the disclosure of information. Training them in correctly denying it, is equally important.
Another argument is that RTI has slowed decision-making since ministers and senior bureaucrats are hesitant to express their opinion freely in file notings and internal communications with colleagues and seniors, petrified that their point of view will be available for public scrutiny sooner or later. What is it that a public servant is afraid of? Why will a honest and transparent officer or minister give one opinion in a written note to his seniors and colleagues, while wanting to disclose another opinion to the public? In fact, those who are sincere and honest would be encouraged to give frank opinions and make reasoned notings knowing fully well that they are writing on a blackboard being read by 1.2 billion citizens. The RTI Act has in fact made the decision-making process more transparent and the government should itself volunteer to release the maximum amount of information into the public domain if it really wants to reduce the number of requests for information. Most public authorities, including most of the higher judiciary, have not even made public the set of suo motu disclosures mandated in section 4 of the RTI Act.
Finally, apprehensions have been expressed that the efficacy of government officers and staff is suffering due to the ever increasing number of applications seeking information. Although no empirical evidence has been advanced for this, the blame nevertheless lies squarely with the government. The RTI Act provides for each public authority to index and catalogue its records so as to facilitate access to information. Even public authorities in the top-most echelons of the government have yet to comply with this basic provision. Neither has the government accepted the recommendation of the second ARC that one per cent of the funds for all flagship programmes should be earmarked for a period of five years for updating records, improving infrastructure and creating Public Records offices. Most states do not even have a Public Records Act in place. If its own record-keeping is shoddy, the government can hardly blame the RTI applicant for the overload.
Rather than calling for a review, the government would be well advised to first implement the Act properly — both in letter and in spirit.