The Wire: New Delhi: Tuesday, May 23, 2017.
At a recent
seminar, a number of stakeholders sought wide-ranging reforms to ensure that
the RTI Act remains an effective tool for ordinary people to access information
with.
In light of
growing support against the RTI Act within the present dispensation (which sees
it as a UPA legacy), a retired senior bureaucrat recently observed at a seminar
that the Act needs to be preserved as an effective tool to ensure accountability.
At a
discussion organised by the Research, Assessment and Analysis Group (RaaG),
Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to
Information (NCPRI), the bureaucrat said that at the moment, RTI applications
are seen as a “nuisance” by a large number of officials.
However, RTI
being the only tool an ordinary citizen can access information with, the
bureaucrat suggested that the media should be involved in the process of
ensuring accountability and said the Department of Personnel and Training
(DoPT) should be made to realise that it is the only way forward. He also
suggested that a list of deficiencies towards implementing the Act in states
should be sent to the state chief secretary regularly by the Central
Information Commission (CIC) for necessary corrective action.
Proactive
disclosure
Chief
information commissioner R. K. Mathur said a committee constituted by the DoPT
has failed to ensure that all the ministries mention RTI implementation in
their annual reports. Given that 70-80% of all RTI applications arise from
personal grievances, he said it would help if the ministries start opening up
their own files to aid the flow of information. “It would amount to proactive
disclosure to the applicant,” he said.
In several
cases, when people are not satisfied with the replies, second appeals are filed
which increase the burden of appeals. This becomes counterproductive when only
a certain category of privileged and educated people have their second appeals
addressed. Thus, he said, prompt disclosure would help the masses.
Stating that
most officers do not maintain proper records, Mathur urged every public
information officer to maintain records of the cases handled by them to ensure
better continuity in operations.
Former chief
justice of the Delhi high court Justice A.P. Shah suggested that the commission
refer to “supportive judgments” to better comply with Section 4 of the RTI Act.
“If despite the order, a department does not comply, you can go to the high
court,” he said.
Justice Shah
also suggested that information commissions use the services of lawyers and law
students as “law clerks” to help draft orders and to make documents legally
sound. This, he said, would address the problem of the commission’s orders not
being legally tenable, as has been pointed out by the RAAG-SNS report titled
‘Tilting the Balance of Power: Adjudicating the RTI Act.’ To this effect, he
said that every information commissioner undergo a short legal education
programme.
Furthermore,
he said that penalties should be imposed selectively. “We should not have a penalty
regime, but few orders with heavy penalties”.
Other
concerns
A number of
past and present information commissioners also spoke at the meet. Central
information commissioner Yashovardhan Azad brought up the issue of courts
striking down penalties imposed by commissioners and pointed to instances when
the high court declared such orders “ultra vires”. He also referred to a flood
of vexatious appeals and demanded that a mechanism be devised to deal with
frivolous applications which seek volumes of information.
Former chief
information commissioner M.L. Sharma wanted the Centre to place more resources
with the information commissions. He also suggested that the powers of the
commissions be rethought, since all they can do in matters of Section 4
violations is make suggestions. “Section 4 is too weak a law and it should be
made more specific,” he said, adding that as of now the “commissions are
helpless in enforcing their orders.”
Vinson Paul,
chief information commissioner of Kerala pointed out that commissions were
suffering delays in appointments. While seven posts for information
commissioners were vacant in Kerala, he was the only one in office. As a
consequence, the number of pending cases had risen to 13,000 cases.
In Kashmir,
only 80 of the 300 public authorities surveyed took to proactive disclosure
under Section 4. “In our state, many of the departments do not even have their
own websites,” the chief information commissioner for Kashmir said, suggesting
that the CIC should engage the states by meeting chief secretaries on a regular
basis.
Venkatesh
Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative said heavier penalities had
not helped in Karnataka as the number of petitions and instances of
non-compliance have also registered an increase. He also noted that the
Committee of Secretaries had, in a regressive decision, diluted provisions that
sought to make heads of departments responsible for violations of the Act.
Shekhar
Singh, founder of NCPRI, said India was the land of a thousand parliaments with
different institutions passing orders at their own discretion. The same
discretion, he said, was responsible for non-compliance with Section 4
regulations.
Quoting from
an NCPRI report, he said the solution lay in compensating those seeking
information, issuing notices to public authorities for non-compliance,
penalising the heads of departments and making public the information
disclosed.
NCPRI also
suggested that the penalty for performance deficiencies should be exposed by
the media and legal remedies should be resorted to when necessary.