The Tribune: Editorials: Wednesday,
April 05, 2017.
Activists
working for transparency in governance have a reason to be alarmed at the Modi
government’s move to change rules framed under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act. The government’s track-record on transparency is uninspiring. It has just
hurried through the Lok Sabha amendments to 40 laws, including one that ensures
anonymity in political funding. The only minor legislative change it has chosen
to forget relates to replacing the expression “Leader of Opposition” with
“leader of the largest party in Parliament” and this is not without a motive.
The purpose is to delay/scuttle the appointment of a Lokpal. Since the RTI Act
is one of the most empowering laws passed in India, any attempt to dilute it is
bound to invite disapproval and criticism.
Some of the rules put up on the official site
for public comments will discourage the healthy trend of RTI activism in this
country. These include raising the application fee to Rs 50, passing on the
cost of reply and postage to the applicant, rejection of a hand-written
application and an application exceeding 500 words. These may appear harmless
but collectively they raise the bar for access to information. The provision
for closing an RTI file on the death of the applicant, requiring the restart of
the process for seeking information, serves, even if inadvertently, to
aggravate risk to the life of public-spirited citizens.
Besides, citizens seeking information about
their entitlements or rights are being put to hurdles seen in courts. In a 2013
case the Supreme Court had ruled that RTI appeals and complaints are not in the
nature of a civil or criminal dispute, and information commissions established
under the RTI Act are not quasi-judicial tribunals. An RTI application/appeal
therefore should not end with the death of the applicant. If states too follow
the Central RTI rules, the level of risk and costs for RTI activists can be
well imagined. The government should instead pick up more suitable Information
Commissioners rather than handing over these posts to loyalists and find ways
for faster disposal of RTI applications. The apex court has questioned the
functioning of information commissions and quality of orders passed.