Wednesday , March 24 , 2010
The government is mulling amendments to the Right to Information Act, but these may weaken the law, says V. Kumara Swamy
When Sunil Kumar Mahto, a Ranchi-based right to information (RTI) activist, filed an application asking for the reason for what seemed to be an inordinate delay in laying a metalled road to a village in his district, he received a reply that shocked him. “The public information officer (PIO) gave it in writing that according to the documents, the road had been laid two years ago and that a sum of Rs 28 lakh was spent on the project,” recalls Mahto.
What followed was a flood of RTI applications from Mahto and others to unmask the people responsible for the irregularities. “Ultimately, we were able to establish who the government officials responsible for the bungling were, and a few were suspended too,” says Mahto.
Mahto and thousands of citizens like him may be benefiting from the Right to Information Act, 2005. But a central government move to carry out some amendments to the Act could seriously compromise the people’s power to hold government functionaries accountable for their actions.
Some controversial amendments that are reportedly under consideration include refusal of “frivolous or vexatious” applications, non-disclosure of “discussions/consultations that take place before arriving at a decision” (file notings) and also exempting certain functions of the judiciary from the ambit of the RTI.
Although President Pratibha Patil in her address to Parliament in June 2009 had announced that the government would “strengthen” the Act, activists say that the amendments proposed would only weaken the law and reduce transparency.
“Some of the amendments have been proposed purely because of the inability of the bureaucracy to handle the pressure from citizens filing RTI applications. Government officials can’t believe that they are being held accountable for their actions,” says Shekhar Singh, founder member, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, New Delhi.
One of the most hotly debated points relates to the amendment proposed to Section 8 of the RTI Act that deals with “exemption from disclosure of information”. The government is said to be keen to add to this section the “discussions/consultations that take place before arriving at a decision”, or ‘file notings’.
“Officers are scared to register their frank opinion while passing or rejecting a file since they know that it can be accessed by a vengeful person in the future. This is why we want the file notings to be exempted from the purview of the RTI Act,” says an official of the department of personnel and training (DoPT), which handles the administration of the RTI Act.
But those opposing the move claim that it is only the corrupt who would benefit if file notings were exempted from the right to information. “Why would an upright officer fear anything? Only corrupt officials don’t want their opinion to be known publicly. In fact, it is through file notings that we can unmask the corrupt,” says Arun Bhatia, a Pune-based former IAS officer-turned-politician, who filed a case in the Supreme Court against any changes to the RTI Act.
Another proposed amendment that has been under discussion for a long time relates to the rejection of “frivolous and vexatious” applications. In fact, the Second Administrative and Reforms Commission had suggested an amendment to Section 7 of the RTI Act by inserting sub section (10) that would state that the “PIO may refuse a request for information if the request is manifestly frivolous or vexatious. Provided that such a refusal shall be communicated within 15 days of receipt of application, with the prior approval of the appellate authority.”
To be sure, there are plenty of “frivolous” requests for information and there is no doubt that addressing them does amount to a waste of government resources. However, activists say that a clause allowing PIOs the right to label this or that petition as frivolous would lead to misuse. Even now PIOs do reject some petitions because they are deemed nonsensical but, say critics, the amendment would encourage them to reject many more which may not be quite so irrelevant or frivolous. “A labourer of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme wanting to know the exact amount of wages due to him could be interpreted as frivolous by a PIO. But for the labourer it is a matter of his livelihood,” says Singh.
Besides, any rejection by the PIO on the grounds that the application is frivolous can be appealed to the Central Information Commission (CIC). “An amendment like this would lead to the CIC being flooded with an unmanageable number of petitions,” says Subash Aggarwal, one of the most active RTI applicants in the country.
Yet another issue that is being hotly debated relates to the judiciary. “There is talk of exempting the judiciary from the ambit of the Act to a great extent. But the Act is the only tool to induce at least a measure of accountability in an otherwise non-accountable judicial system,” says Aggarwal.
After a full bench of the Delhi High Court rejected the Supreme Court’s plea to exempt the Chief Justice of India’s office from the RTI Act, the Supreme Court has appealed to itself and an order is expected soon.
“The Supreme Court appealing the case to itself is a very peculiar situation. We already know what the apex court thinks about the RTI’s provisions. But let us wait for the final judgement,” says Singh.
According to Singh, the Act and its implications are yet to be understood by government officials and the public at large, and hence it should be examined only after it has been implemented fully. “It is by no means a perfect law. And it is still a very young law. First, let the government implement it sincerely, and then we can think of amendments,” he says.
According to Aggarwal, if the government is indeed serious about making some changes to the Act, it should be in the form of amendments to Sections 27 and 28 of the law that give the “power to make rules by appropriate government”. Aggarwal says that this provision should be repealed to make the law uniform for all states and public authorities. “At present many states and public authorities have drafted their own RTI rules which are contrary to the basic sections of the Act itself,” he points out.
According to Aggarwal, if the government is indeed serious about making some changes to the Act, it should be in the form of amendments to Sections 27 and 28 of the law that give the “power to make rules by appropriate government”. Aggarwal says that this provision should be repealed to make the law uniform for all states and public authorities. “At present many states and public authorities have drafted their own RTI rules which are contrary to the basic sections of the Act itself,” he points out.
The government has of course said that it will consult all stakeholders before making any amendments to the RTI Act. The impending Supreme Court decision could hold the key here, some say. “I think the government will try and bring in the amendments based on what the Supreme Court says, but we should be very vigilant against any dilution of the Act,” says Singh.
.JPG)
.JPG)
