COUNTERVIEW:
Raipur: Tuesday, 02 September 2014.
Even after
more than a month of destroying the 11,100 files, the Ministry of Home Affairs
(MHA), Government of India, does not have, in one comprehensive list, details
of all files it destroyed in July. Alleging this on the basis of a right to
information (RTI) application, senior activist of the Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative (CHRI) Venkatesh Nayak has said, “Having looked at records
management practices in some detail during my decade-long career of advocating
for transparency in government, I find it surprising that the MHA went about
destroying files without even preparing a list of files for review.”
Referring to
Union home minister Rajnath Singh’s statement in Rajya Sabha in July, Nayak
says, “The Home Minister stated that records were weeded out in accordance with
Para 113 of the Central Secretariat's Manual of Office Procedure (CS-MOP). Para
113(4) states that the department records room must send a list of files ripe
for reviewing and destruction/ archivisation in January each year in quarterly
lots.”
However, the
RTI reply by the public information officer said that the even the list of
files that were weeded out “has not been compiled till date”, which indicates
that the procedure for properly identifying files for weeding out was simply
not followed. Nayak underlines, “Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act states that all
public authorities, including the MHA must index, catalogue, computerise and
network the records they hold in custody.”
The activist
asks, “If the MHA's divisions did not have a preliminary list of files to be
reviewed for destruction, how exactly did the weeding out process take place?
Did the 500 officers, whom the Home Minister stated as being involved in the
weeding out exercise, simply walked to the records rooms or the shelves where
the old files were kept and started weeding them out one by one?”
Nayak
comments, “The refusal to give details of this process both to Parliament when
the issue was debated and now when a request is made under RTI, is shocking to
say the least. What worsens the case is the audacity of the PIO's reply sent
more than 30 days after the request was received in the MHA that the
information will be given only on payment of fees." Nayak emphasises,
"Under the RTI Act it is simply not open to a PIO to charge any fees for
giving information after 30 days. Nor can the supply of information be deferred
to a date beyond 30 days.”
Nayak says,
“The Home Minister informed Parliament that 500 officials were involved in the
weeding out exercise. No further details were given. When I asked for only the
designations of such officers because officers of all grades and ranks are not
permitted to authorise destruction of official records, a vague reply is given
to me.”
He adds, “Let
alone the names, even the designations of the officers who authorised
destruction of files is being denied under the RTI Act in a roundabout manner.
This is not in keeping with the promise of transparency that was made when this
Government took over the reins of power in Delhi. Citizen taxpayers have the
right to know who authorised the destruction of files, as the salary bill for
the officers' time spent on this work is footed by them.”
Nayak further
says that the rules require that records that are more than 25 years old be
reviewed for archivisation in consultation with the National Archives.
“However, the PIO's reply indicates that National Archives was not consulted at
all during this weeding our process. So how old were the records that were
weeded out is a serious question which was not satisfactorily answered either
in Parliament or in response to my RTI application.”
Further,
“these records are meant for preservation for 25 years or more. However, the
PIO's reply indicates that no file classified 'top secret', 'secret' or
'confidential' was sent to the National Archives in June-July, 2014. It is only
obvious that files of shorter lifespan would also not have been sent to the
Archives for preservation as they may not contain information of historical
value that is worth preserving. What then was destroyed in June-July 2014 is a
mystery that neither the Home Minister's reply in the Rajya Sabha nor the PIO's
reply clarifies.”
“The Home
Minister and his senior officers have a lot of 'homework' to do if they are to
truly deliver on the Prime Minister's promise of increased transparency in the
Central government's actions and greater accountability to the people of India.
This kind of transparency cannot be accomplished through Twitter or Facebook or
other social media. What is required to be done is something akin to what
Norway has done with its official records.”
In Norway,
Nayak says, “the meta data about all files generated and held by public
authorities is published online. A request under their RTI law may be made for
any of these documents through this website. If a requested document is not
covered by any exemption, it is emailed to the requester within a week. I have
received some official documents in this manner when I tested out this
facility. India has a lot of work to do if it wants to join the groups of
nations that practice the transparency they preach”.
.JPG)
.JPG)
