Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Friday,
May 05, 2017.
“If the
information you are seeking, can seriously harm someone, he will definitely
harm you,” says Dr Anand Rai, Right to Information (RTI) activist and Vyapam
whistleblower.
Dr Rai claims
he has filed more than a 1,000 RTI applications after the RTI Act came into
being in 2005. But now, he and his ilk are a worried lot.
Their worries
stem from a set of Draft Rules issued by the Department of Personnel and
Training (DoPT) in April. One of the biggest causes of concern is Draft Rule 12
which states, “The proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the
death of the appellant.” The draft rules also have a provision that allows for
the withdrawal of appeals based on a written communication by the appellant.
THREAT
PERCEPTION
“Around 40 to
60 lakh RTI applications are filed yearly in India and a large percentage of
these are by the poor and marginalized. Such provisions will provide a perverse
incentive to vested interests to silence the information seeker through
coercion or physical harm,”says Anjali Bhardwaj of the National Campaign for
Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI).
Venkatesh
Nayak of CHRI says the Draft Rule 12 is very dangerous as it can be misused to
threaten information seekers from not pursuing their cases. “If an RTI user is
murdered his case will be closed automatically. Around 400 incidents of attacks
on RTI user have been reported since 2005. They are susceptible to threats,
intimidation, physical assault and murder. Even the Whistleblower Protection
Act does not come to their rescue, as its coverage kicks in only when a citizen
makes a complaint of corruption using the information obtained under RTI,
whereas, attacks have occurred simply because citizens filed RTI applications.”
And
protection from the state does not come easy. As Vyapam’s skeletons started to
tumble, threats to Dr Rai and his family increased. Eventually, it was a
‘supari’ (murder contract) in his name that led Rai to seek police protection
in November 2013. Rai was provided the security – a gunman – at the cost of ₹50,000.
As Rai could not afford ₹50,000, he appealed to the high court for protection.
“Since Vyapam
was a very high profile case and the judge was understanding enough. He
instructed I should be provided security without being charged for it,” he
says. So far, Rai has been lucky. However, many others are not. Like Suhas
Haldankar who exposed civic lapses at Kharalwadi in Pune was murdered with
concrete blocks on April 9. According to data of Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative, at least 65 murders can be linked to the victim’s use of RTI. And
2017 has already witnessed three murders of activists.
Harsh Mander
a key campaigners of the Act says that the proposed rules would water down,
instead of strengthening the Act. “It is one of the most important laws for
accountability and transparency. Clause 12 will incentivise people to eliminate
those who are asking difficult questions. These people are vulnerable and such
provisions will make them more vulnerable.” Mander says if any RTI applicant is
harmed, the information sought should be placed in the public domain. “This
would disincentives people to at least some extent before killing them (RTI
applicants).”
RTI in
troubled waters
The
proposed rules will further provide a perverse incentive to vested interests to
silence information seekers
Bone of
contention
Ministry
of personnel, public grievances & pensions, department of personnel &
training has issued a set of Draft Rules for processing Right to Information
applications, complaints and appeals seeking suggestions from the public.
Activists
highlight since there is no legal provision to provide protection to RTI
activists, many of them had sought protection from the state in the past, but
failed to get any support. Bhardwaj highlights the murders of Nandi Singh from
Assam and Ram Thakur from Bihar. “After Nandi Singh was first attacked in
August 2012, he filed a case in the court of the CJM seeking security for his
life. Failing to get security, Singh was cut into pieces in September 2012.
Similarly, Thakur had been attacked at least five times, before he was murdered
in March 2013. He had requested the police for protection more than once.”
A senior
official in the DoPT said the security of the applicants is paramount. “The draft
rule suggestions came from The Central Information Commission and their view on
Clause 12 was that if an applicant dies, whom do they hand over the information
to.
However,
constructive suggestions from the civil society will be taken into consideration
before finalizing,” says the official.
On adding a
special protection clause in the Act, the senior official stated that the RTI
Act was never perceived as penal. “The Indian Penal Code has such provisions;
therefore there is no need for a specific penal clause in the RTI Act. Police
is a state subject and if a complainant is not provided security, then it’s the
failure of the local machinery,” he says.
Former
Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi avers it is the duty of the
state to provide protection to every citizen who feels threatened and not just
RTI activists. “Protection to all, not just RTI activists should be threat
assessment based. We should not create a separate class of people and provide
for their security.”
LOOPHOLES
To protect
the identity of the applicants, the DoPT issued an order in October 2016
stating that while uploading the RTI replies on the websites of the ministries
and departments, the personal details of RTI applicants should not be
disclosed.
“We try every
bit to protect the identity of the applicant so that he is not caused any
harm,” clarified the official.
But the
reality is different. Pankti Jog of the Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel says that
while the primary duty of the Public Information Officer (PIO) is to give out
the information sought by the applicant, in most cases the PIO is the first
point from where the details of the applicant are leaked. This is especially
true in rural and semi urban areas. “Shailesh Kantilal Patel of Gujarat filed
an RTI application on June 15, 2015 at noon at the district superintendent of
police’s office. He was murdered on the same evening. There is no definite way
to prove, how and who kills RTI applicants,” Jog says.
Activists say
there is no effective grievances redressal mechanism in the Act, and even when
RTI applicants seek protection, the State Security Council weighs the ‘Threat
Perception Report’ before deciding the tenure and eligibility for protection
and by that time, the information seeker is already harmed.
Bhardwaj says
the political will required to ensure the RTI Act is implemented in letter and
spirit is missing. “There are three vacant posts in the Central Information
Commission. Even the Chief Information Commissioner’s post was left vacant for
more than 9 months and the appointment was made only on the order of the court.
Similarly, none of the accountability legislations - Lokpal Act, and Whistle
Blowers Protection Act have been operationalised.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
