India Legal: National: Friday, June 30, 2017.
RTI activists
Nikhil Dey, Naurti Bai and three others were convicted in a 19-year-old case by
a Rajasthan court. They were allegedly framed for seeking information in a
corruption matter. Only a higher court can now provide them relief
On June 13,
five Right to Information (RTI) activists were sentenced to four months jail by
a court in Rajasthan after being convicted of “trespass and hurt”, in a
19-year-old case. Nikhil Dey, former sarpanch Naurti Bai of Harmada in Ajmer,
Ram Karan, Babulal and Chotu Malakar were convicted under Sections 323
(punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 451 (trespass) of the Indian
Penal Code for raising their voices against alleged corruption by Pyare Lal
Tak, then sarpanch of Harmada. The sentence has been suspended pending appeal
by the activists in the higher court of Kishangarh additional district judge.
This has brought to light the plight of RTI activists in the country who are
constantly intimidated, attacked and murdered for seeking information against
corruption.
It all began
in 1998 when the activists had sought information on payments for development
works in the village. Before the RTI Act was promulgated Dey, Aruna Roy and
other activists were involved in educating rural citizens that RTI was their
fundamental right. As part of this, they were seeking information from Pyare
Lal, who was also a liquor contractor of the village.
Dey and four
others had alleged that the payments for toilets, Indira Awaas houses and
labour payments for development works had not been made to the beneficiaries.
They had visited the sarpanch’s office 73 times but failed to get the
information.
The Mazdoor
Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), the organisation under which the activists
worked, said in a press note: “Because his (sarpanch) office was usually closed
during working hours, the activists went to his house to ask for the
information with an order from the BDO (block development officer). The
sarpanch came out of his house and physically assaulted the activists. Despite
the attack, the activists decided not to file an FIR, thinking that right to
information cannot depend on police cases and that it had to depend on dialogue
with the sarpanch and the exercise of a legal right under the Panchayati Raj
Act.” On the same day, Roy had written to the district collector to ensure the
activists get the information.
After a few
days, the sarpanch filed an FIR, accusing the activists of assaulting him.
Following this, Naurti Bai also filed a case against him under the Scheduled
Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Both the FIRs were
closed in June 1998, and the police filed final reports. But in 2001, the court
re-opened the case following a petition filed by the sarpanch, which the
activists were unaware of. Though the case continued for 19 long years and
Pyare Lal allegedly produced one false witness after another, the FIR that the
activists had filed was not re-opened.
ACTIVISTS
CONCERNED
RTI activists
have expressed their concern and dismay at the verdict. The MKSS and Roy called
the verdict “an utterly false case filed by a corrupt, powerful sarpanch who
misused his influence and power and physically assaulted them for demanding
information in a case where the activists were fighting for the rights of the
poor thro-ugh means that were completely within the ambit of the law.” They
said it was “a body blow to the effort of citizens to fight corruption and
stand up for the rights of the citizen”.
The civil
society organisation, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) also condemned
the sentence. It disagreed with the court and said: “PUCL feels several facts
and evidence presented in the defence were not considered by the court…. We
will appeal against this and are certain truth will prevail.”
This is not a
solitary incident where those seeking information from the administration have
been falsely targeted. Former Central Information Commissioner and an RTI
activist Shailesh Gandhi told India Legal: “Perhaps this is a way to discredit
the RTI movement. There has been a concerted move by those with power to deprecate,
assault, and murder RTI users and activists. False cases have also been filed
in many places. Perhaps, the system now wishes to coerce citizens seeking to
exercise their fundamental right that they will also be sent to prison. If they
can do this to the pioneers and champions of RTI, the message to the others is
chilling.” Gandhi has started a petition against the verdict on the online
platform Change.org, asking the President to take action against it, which has
garnered a total of 1,223 signatures so far.
RTI has
become a bugbear for those who see transparency as a threat and they go to any
extent to deny information. There have been murders of at least 59 RTI
activists and this does not include unreported cases. According to a 2005-2016
analysis done by a Delhi-based advocacy group Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative (CHRI), there have been more than 311 instances of harassment,
including murder, attacks and intimidation.
This is
mainly because there is no law to protect RTI activists. Even though the RTI
Act, 2005, is in place, it does not hold any special provision to safeguard the
security of those who use the RTI Act. Former expenditure secretary and an RTI
activist, EAS Sarma told India Legal: “There is no law to protect the lives of
RTI activists except the safeguards that any citizen has against violence.
Since RTI activism often runs counter to corruption and criminality, there is
need for special legislative protection.”
Ever since
the RTI Act came into effect in 2005, efforts have been made to undermine its
effectiveness. Terms like “frivolous RTIs” have often been used by the
government to discredit the institution of RTI. In fact, in a recent move, the
government tried to introduce a new rule which, if it were passed, would pose more
risk to the lives of the activists. It proposed that “a second appeal can be
withdrawn by the appellant and it would abate on the death of an appellant”,
which means if an RTI applicant dies, the information sought by him/her will
not be made public. Gandhi feels this will be exploited: “Allowing withdrawal
of RTI appeals would be a direct encouragement to (put) undesirable pressure on
applicants, and deal making. The law expects all information to be available
suo motu.”
SCOPE FOR
DELAY
The rule
would also lead to tardy delays of cases like Dey’s. Says Sarma: “Suppose the
PIO/ Appellate Authority/ Information Commission take a long time to dispose of
the petition under the RTI Act and suppose the RTI applicant expires meanwhile,
would it not be creating scope for undue delays and injustice to the applicant?
Usually, the PIOs do not respond to the applicant’s information requirements
fully and accurately. There is a time limit for the PIO but there are no time
limits for the Appellate Authority and the Commission. Without prescribing
reasonable time limits for the Appellate Authority and the Commission, it will
be inappropriate for the government to seek an amendment of this kind.”
Even before
the RTI Act, Aruna Roy and other activists were involved in educating rural
citizens that RTI was their fundamental right. Photo: UNI
 |
| Even before the RTI Act, Aruna Roy and other activists were involved in educating rural citizens that RTI was their fundamental right. Photo: UNI |
“The impact
of this amendment is that it will further incentivise the appellate authorities
and the PIO to delay matters,” he said.
Venkatesh
Nayak, programme coordinator of access to information programme, CHRI, feels
that such a rule is being proposed to weaken the activist’s right to sue the
government. Anand Rai, the whistleblower who exposed the Vyapam scam, however,
feels no law can protect them until there is proper implementation.
He told India
Legal there is no proper department in the government offices to guide the
applicants about the procedure. “There are no counters where one can submit the
RTI application. One is made to go from floor to floor in search of the
relevant department. There is no manpower, no awareness campaign and no
guidance about the RTI Act. How will a common man use it? Also, even if he
does, he is made to file so many appeals and petitions, one loses the patience
to go through with it, leave alone bear the cost.”
Just a mere
Act cannot protect the rights of those seeking the truth. And, when this is
brought to the notice of the government, it talks only about amendments. As
Shailesh Gandhi puts it: “No amendments will work when the law and all ethics
and honesty are retired.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
