The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Tuesday, June 26, 2018.
In the Global
Right to Information Rating conducted by Access Info Europe (AIE) and the
Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), Bangladesh scored 107 out of 150 points.
The scoring was weighed by evaluating some features of the Right to Information
Act including access of the law, its scope, requesting procedures, exceptions
therein, appeals, sanctions and promotional measures. With all these,
Bangladesh stands 24th position whereas its neighbours like Sri Lanka possess 3rd
rank and Indian stands at 5th. Though Bangladesh enacted the Right to
Information (RTI) Act 2009 to guarantee the opportunity of seeking information
as of right, the gradual decrease of applicants' number in seeking information
from the Information Commission is a major challenge for Bangladesh towards
ensuring good governance (see, Md. Mostafa Hosain, 'The RTI Mechanism: Issues
of public interest and time duration', The Daily Star, 27 February 2018). One
of the substantial reasons is perhaps the non-inclusion of private bodies such
as private banks and other financial institutions within the scope of the RTI
mechanism under the Act.
The present
writing investigates scope of the Right to Information Act 2009 in relation to
private institutions. The extent of encroaching RTI towards private body is
limited to categories specified in section 2(b)(iv), (v) and (vi) of the Act.
According to section 2(b)(iv), “authority” includes “any private organisation
or institution run by government financing or with aid in grant from the
government fund”, while as per section 2(b)(v), it may be “any private
organisation or institution run by foreign aid in grant”. In the similar line,
organisations even if private, undertaking pubic functions are also bound to
provide information (section 2(b)(vi)). So, the scope of the Act is limited to
private organisations or NGOs which are run by government aid, finance, or
foreign aid or finance.
The crucial
point is whether other private bodies are bound to provide information or not.
This has been reported in January 2014 in one national daily newspaper that
referred to the opinion of one of the spokespersons of the Information
Commission of Bangladesh asserting that private banks are also bound to
disclose information under the RTI Act. This point was raised against Rajshahi
branch of the First Security Islami Bank which shown unwillingness to provide
information. When the matter was forwarded before the Commission, it sought
opinion of law ministry and the later one took the position that all private
banks are “information providing unit” and “information providing authorities”
like public banks. This position has not been sustained later on and the
Commission was of the view that private banks do not fall within the meaning of
“authority” under the RTI Act. The plain meaning of section 2(b) of the Act
dictates that the Act is limited to those particular private bodies as
mentioned in the said section.
In this
regard, the position of other South Asian countries warrants attention. The RTI
Act of Pakistan through section 8(1)(a), explicitly excluded citizens to seek
RTI about records of the banking companies and financial institutions relating
to the accounts of their customers. The position of Sri Lankan RTI mechanism in
terms of encompassing private bodies is quite attractive. The Act, under
section 43, encompassed scope of RTI to higher educational institutions
including private universities, other private educational institutions and
professional institutions. The position of India is similar. In the milestone
decision in Ms. Sadhana Dixit v Directorate of Education, the Central
Information Commission (CIC) vehemently ruled that private schools cannot deny
to provide information on service records and salaries. The Commission further
instructed Director of Higher Education to notify Public Information Officers
(PIOs) in all private recognised colleges and high and senior secondary schools
to facilitate the people to seek information under the RTI Act. The purpose of
bringing private bodies within the rubric of RTI is to reduce fleecing of
students, ensuring recruitment of required faculties, providing standard
infrastructural facilities and regular payment of salaries. The same ratio
applies to private banks and financial institutions.
The
significant challenge is to ensure that citizens are enjoying RTI in a larger
number and greater scale. It has been reflected in the Annual Report 2016 of
the Information Commission where the Commission recommended endorsing RTI
mechanism for all private national and multinational companies. Before such
mechanism is implemented, some other strategies can be followed in order the
enhance flow of RTI. One possible way is adopting measures by the Central Bank
requiring all private banks and financial bodies to disseminate information
demanded by citizens. Moreover, citizens, in case of extracting information
from any private bodies, may seek information from the pertinent governmental
bodies entrusted to monitor that private institution. For instance, information
about a particular private industry can be sought from the concerned inspector
under the Ministry of Labour and Employment.
Undoubtedly,
the development cannot be meaningful without citizens' access to and enjoyment
of rights particularly right to information. The inclusion of private bodies
within the purview of RTI would be the best step to do so.
The writer is
an Assistant Professor, School of Law, BRAC University.