DNA: Mumbai:Thursday, July 12, 2012.
A recent nine-page letter by the new state chief information commissioner, Ratnakar Gaikwad, is being hailed and panned in equal measure by RTI activists.
While it is hailed for its determination, it is criticised, rather caustically, for being merely decorative. In the letter addressed to the state chief secretary and other public authorities, Gaikwad strongly advocates efforts that need to be taken for voluntary disclosure of information and strengthening the implementation of the Act.
The efforts, he says, are long delayed and are crucial for its better implementation. Highlights of the letter include the need for public information officers, the first appellate authority and other officers to take the Act more seriously, and give detailed orders and pull up PIOs who do not give information.
While such instructions are similar to the ones written by previous commissioners, there are some commendable new points, including making collectors nodal officers for suo motu declaration of information, the chief secretary himself conducting monthly review meetings for the same, having a Right to Information Day once a month, and framing charges against errant officials under the Maharasthra Public Record Management Act, 2005.
As information commissioners, officials are not just supposed to sit and tell public authorities whether to give information or not.
They should ensure that RTI is used to promote transparency. The very basis on which the Act is formed states that it be used as sparingly as possible. The government should ensure that it voluntarily discloses information.
Thus, the letter is being hailed because Gaikwad has done what activists have long been demanding that the government do its bit to improve suo motu disclosure. He has done this by exercising more powers under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The letter has been written invoking sections under the RTI Act that give him power to pull up officers who do not adhere to his directives.
Gaikwad is among the few officials to openly acknowledge that babus continue to live in the Raj mindset, which he says he intends to break. He also states that since the government did not help him with any cooling off period between his roles as chief secretary and information commissioner, he can use his good offices to get cracking. While all this is fine, there can be no denying that Gaikwad himself never adhered to similar letters from information commissioners in his earlier avatar. Previous commissioners have written similar letters either directly to various public authorities some of which he headed or put them in their yearly reports submitted to the assembly. They have been documented in this paper. Gaikwad, in his defence, says he never got a letter under the provisions he has written them under. But that can not mean that he did not know what was expected of him.
Thus, clearly, Gaikwad is asking officers to do what he himself was not inclined to do. Will they listen ?
.JPG)
.JPG)
