New Delhi FRONT PAGE Sunday, May 9, 2010
NAC to decide RTI amendments
The controversial amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which have been a bone of contention between Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, will now be examined by the National Advisory Council, the newly reconstituted policy watchdog headed by Sonia. Though the Prime Minister had earlier insisted on a slew of key amendments, the Government has sufficiently pruned the list of proposals to undertake just a few administrative amendments.
According to highly placed sources, due to difference of opinion between Sonia and Manmohan Singh, the matter would now be examined threadbare by NAC. However, the original list of amendments - which included exempting file notings, preventing “frivolous and vexatious” applications and keeping Cabinet deliberations out of the purview till a decision is completed - has just got shorter.
A source said, “We are now proposing only administrative amendments which are necessary for smooth functioning of the Central Information Commission (CIC), the final appellate authority for RTI Act. This draft will be sent to NAC for further discussions.” Sources indicated that after Sonia took serious note of the amendments some of them have been dropped. The Government is not likely to push amendments that give powers to information officers to reject “frivolous and vexatious” applications or exempt certain file notings as proposed earlier.
With the Budget session of Parliament over, the Government would first appoint members of the NAC, the influential civil society-Government interface which played a key role in the enactment of RTI Act 2005. Last week, the Congress president had confirmed to reporters in Parliament corridors that members would be appointed this month and the NAC would be back in action.
Earlier, worried RTI activists, including Sonia’s close confidante Aruna Roy, had shot off letters to the Congress president and the Prime Minister expressing fears that such amendments would dilute the transparency legislation. They had argued that the limits of the Act have not been tested and amending it would not help at all.
After receiving these letters, Sonia had written to the Prime Minister last year saying, “It will, of course, take time before
the momentum generated by the Act makes for greater transparency and accountability in the structures of the Government. But the process has begun and it must be strengthened... It is important, therefore, that we adhere strictly to its original aims and refrain from accepting or introducing changes in legislation on the way it is implemented that would dilute its purpose. In my opinion, there is no need for changes or amendments. The only exceptions permitted, such as national security, are already well taken care of in the legislation.” She, in fact, said that lack of training of Government staff, inadequate record maintenance, harassment of applicants and lack of awareness needed to be addressed.
The Prime Minister had dug in heels to assert that certain issues could not be dealt with without changes in the Act. However, now the DoPT seems to have given in.
The shortened draft includes amendments to solve certain administrative difficulties. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is firm on reducing the number of organisations mentioned in the Second Schedule of RTI Act which are exempt from disclosure norms. At present, there are 22 security and intelligence organisations which do not have the general obligation to disclose information unless it is a matter of human rights violation or corruption. These include RAW, Intelligence Bureau, DRDO, SPG, CRPF and CISF. Sources said organisations like Narcotics Control Bureau could be taken off the Schedule.
Another amendment which stays on the list is on the Chief Information Commissioner’s term in office. At present, there is no provision in the Act that lays down who would head the commission in case the chief resigns suddenly or is indisposed. Source said, “These are administrative issues that need to be resolved, so we will put these amendments for NAC’s perusal.”
Another proposed amendment would be to bring some clarity on the issue of benches in CIC. There was much controversy when DoPT said that there was nothing in the RTI Act which enabled Information Commissioners to hold separate hearings. DoPT said that Chief Information Commissioner had no powers to constitute separate benches and all Information Commissioners should hear the cases together. This controversy, however, was resolved but it brought to the fore a big lacuna in the Act. The draft amendment would now vest power in the chief of a commission to constitute benches.
.JPG)
.JPG)
