The Northlines: New Delhi: Friday,
April 07, 2017.
Even though
yesterday was a holiday, the Central Government worked over time to clarify the
confusion caused by some media reports containing statements of some political
leaders, about their views on the Draft Right to Information Rules, 2017.
The Ministry
of Personnel put out a ‘factual position’ on the Draft RTI Rules, explaining
how much of it is a repeat of the existing RTI Rules notified in 2012 and how
some other provisions were only giving effect to parts of the CIC’s Management
Regulations that the Delhi High Court struck down in 2010. This publication has
published a detailed analysis of this ‘factual position’ on April 05, 2017
(Yesterday’s issue)
The Cabinet
Minister for Information and Broadcasting also clarified yesterday that the NDA
Government is committed to transparency and accountability in governance and
these values are non-negotiable. The clarification from such a senior Minister
is very welcome as it sets at rest speculation about the intention behind the
Draft Rules, 2017.
However, the
Government seems to have ignored an important resolution adopted by the Central
Information Commission (CIC) in 2011 about how to deal with situations where
RTI users are attacked for seeking information from any public authority under
the Central Government.
The
CIC’s Resolution called for suo motu action towards greater transparency – not
abatement of the RTI cases.
“The Minister
for Information and Broadcasting is said to have told the media yesterday that
the NDA promised all support to the UPA Government when the RTI Bill was
discussed in Parliament. Indeed, there was unanimity on strengthening the RTI
Bill when it was debated in the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
However, to
set the record straight, the RTI Bill was passed by a voice vote in the Lok
Sabha on 11 May, 2005 when the
Opposition benches in the House were empty.”
CIC’s
Resolution of September 2011 on handling pending RTI applications of ‘murdered’
information seekers
On 13
September, 2011, the CIC adopted a Resolution about the manner of handling
pending RTI applications of persons who are assaulted or murdered for seeking
information. The text of the Resolution moved by one of the then Information
Commissioners- Mr. Shailesh Gandhi, is reproduced below:
“The Central
Information Commission expresses regret and takes note of the reported killings
of and assault on the RTI users across the country. The Commission underlines
the need to take urgent steps by the respective Governments for the safety and
protection of the RTI users. The Commission strongly believes that it is the
duty and responsibility of the respective Governments to safeguard the life and
liberty of the RTI users for which purpose they should invoke the relevant
penal provisions for the prevention and detection of such heinous crimes.
2.
This Commission, therefore, resolves that if it
receives a complaint regarding assault or murder of an information seeker, it
will examine the pending RTI applications of the victim and order the concerned
Department(s) to publish the requested information suo motu on their website as
per the provisions of law.
3.
This Commission also resolves that it will take proactive
steps in ascertaining the status of investigations/prosecutions of the cases
involving information seekers and endeavor to have these processes
expedited.”[emphasis supplied]
To the best
of my knowledge this Resolution has not been set aside by subsequent members of
the CIC.
Comparing
the CIC’s Resolution with the abatement clause of the Draft RTI Rules, 2017
Clearly, the
CIC’s official policy is to take action, suo motu by examining pending RTI
applications, if any case of murder of or attack on any person seeking
information from any public authority under its jurisdiction is reported to it.
The CIC resolved to direct proactive disclosure of such information in
accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, in all such cases. The
Resolution implied that even if the matter had not escalated to the CIC through
an appeal, the CIC would nevertheless call for the details of the case and
examine it and take remedial action promptly. The CIC had also resolved to
follow-up on the criminal cases launched in such matters.
If the Draft
RTI Rules in their current form replace the existing RTI Rules, an appeal or
complaint would abate (lapse without any action being taken on it) when the CIC
comes to know that the appellant/complainant has passed away either due to
natural causes or because he or she was murdered.
So the new
Rules will nullify the CIC’s policy of dealing with RTI applications of those
murdered by vested interests, on a priority basis, in a proactive manner. The
CIC will plead that its hands are tied by the new RTI Rules, so it will do
nothing about the case of a murdered RTI activist except allow the appeal to
abate. This is the import of Draft Rule 12 which seeks to close an appeal on
the death of the appellant. The Hon’ble Minister does not seem to have been informed
of the CIC’s Resolution of 2011 when he explained to the media that most of the
Draft RTI Rules were the same as the RTI Rules notified under the UPA
Government in 2012.
Increase
in the numbers of RTI activists and information seekers attacked over the years
Indeed, in
2007 when the CIC’s Management Regulations were issued allowing for the
abatement of appeals on the death of the appellant, there were only eight
reported cases of attacks on RTI activists and information seekers. It seemed like
an aberration.
In 2011
when the CIC adopted the Resolution discussed above, the numbers had gone up to
168 – 20 times what it was in 2007. By the time the RTI Rules were drafted
discussed and notified in 2012, under the UPA Government, the number of cases
had jumped up to 195 – an increase of 14% in less than a year.
This is
why RTI activists have strongly opposed every proposal to allow abatement of
appeals on the death of the appellant.
The abatement
clause will not empower anybody. Instead, it will provide a loophole to vested
interests to get pending appeals off the CIC’s table by silencing crusaders
against corruption and defenders of social justice and human rights through the
device or murder. The twin notorious cases of murder of whistleblowers – the
Late Satyendra Dubey and the Late Manjunath were linked to allegations of
corruption in public authorities under the Central Government, and not under
any State Government. This truth must not be forgotten in a country whose
national motto is satyameva jayate (truth alone shall triumph).
Noted
political philosopher John Locke explained what should be the end goal of all
laws:
“The end of
law is not abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all
the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no
freedom.”
If the
life and safety of information seekers and RTI activists has to be ensured, two
crucial things (amongst others) must be done:
1)
Draft RTI Rules relating to withdrawal and abatement of
appeals must be junked; and
2)
The RTI Rules should empower the CIC to examine all such
cases suo motu where information seekers are attacked and to direct the public
authorities to disclose all information sought by the sufferers of such
attacks, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Who all
voted in favour of the RTI Bill in 2004- setting the record straight
The Minister
for Information and Broadcasting is said to have told the media yesterday that
the NDA promised all support to the UPA Government when the RTI Bill was
discussed in Parliament. Indeed, there was unanimity on strengthening the RTI
Bill when it was debated in the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
However, to set
the record straight, the RTI Bill was passed by a voice vote in the Lok
Sabha on 11 May, 2005 when the
Opposition benches in the House were empty. According to contemporaneous news
reports, the Opposition had boycotted both Houses of Parliament throughout May,
2005 due to an inflammatory remark made by a member of the UPA and all
subsequent efforts from the Chairs of the respective Houses to bring them back
failed. The truth about the past must be understood in factual terms, not
through the ideological prism of any colour.