Financial Express; Nistula Hebbar; Monday , June 27 , 2011,
The Chief Information Commissioner of India, Satyananda Mishra, is the arbiter of transparency in the country as the apex court of appeal on Right to Information (RTI) applications. He speaks to Nistula Hebbar on the law he is meant to uphold, the government’s continued hold on information and why he thinks the Jan Lokpal draft is a disaster. Excerpts:
Let us begin with the latest controversy regarding RTI, which is over the access to CBI inquiries. What is your stand on the matter ?
For a member of this commission to give an opinion is not desirable because we adjudicate cases in which CBI is a party. Any opinion therefore will prejudice my work. It is like asking whether the IB or the CRPF should be included in the second schedule. On a more generic point, everyone should keep in mind that Section 24 of the Act does not give blanket exemption to any institution.
Human rights violations and cases of corruption are reasons enough for disclosure. A case in point is the Barack missiles acquisition papers which were sought from the Navy.
There have been several cases of violence against RTI activists in states like Maharashtra. As CIC what steps would you recommend to halt this trend.
Let us face it, I do not have police powers to protect people who are seeking information. Having said that, it is well within the power of state governments to ask local administration officials like the district magistrates and the superintendent of police to keep an eye out on known activists in an area. For example, not every information seeker is an activist. Activists are those who are seeking information for a public purpose, like on mining and land mafia. These people are easy to identify and it won’t take much of an effort to provide some watchfulness over these people. Other than that, there is precious little that can be done.
You’ve been in this post for nearly two years now. In your experience, is the government responsive to RTI ?
I would say there is a marginal improvement but, by and large, government departments, without exception, think that the RTI is a nuisance and information, in most cases, is given reluctantly, only because the law mandates it.
Which are the departments which get most requests ?
These are still departments which have most public dealing like the Railways, the MCD and the passport office. Another trend is that a large number of requests are for loan settlements undertaken by banks. Most defaulters, who hear of favourbale settlements of loans with other defaulters, want information. The banks are reluctant to disclose this as each defaulter has a different capacity for repayment. Say if a bank managed to recover R38 crore from a defaulter for a loan of R100 crore because the collateral was a heavily litigated property, it closes the file. In another case where the collateral is fully realizable, it may hold out for a better deal.
The defaulter in question, however, wants the best possible terms for himself too. We have received too many requests on these. I have told banks that even if you do not want to commit on full disclosure, then at least publish reasons why a particular settlement was reached.
Banks have said that it is a business tactic and that it is not proper for them to disclose terms of foreclosure.
It had been alleged earlier that the RTI was used mainly by government servants to gain access to their colleagues’ Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) rather than transparency in governance. Has that come down ?
We still get requests for access to ACRs and also for every major appointment in the government. For example, we just disposed of cases where the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet had been petitioned for information over the appointment of the CMD of Air India, or Trai members or telecom commission members. But as a rule now a full bench of the CIC has ruled that the ACRs of “x” should not be disclosed to “y”. I feel that if there is anything called personal information, then your ACR falls in that category more than anything. It will undermine authority in the government system.
It is the same criticism I have for the JanLokpal draft. The draft says that every complaint should be put online and investigated. But before conclusions are reached, if complaints are publicised this will lead to a trial by public opinion. After which, whether any substance is found in the complaint or not, reputations will be destroyed and authority undermined.
Excessive transparency at the cost of the system is not desirable.
.JPG)
.JPG)
